Ubisoft Believes Next Gen Is the Last for Consoles as Microsoft Looks Beyond Platforms

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

I think you guys are wrong. this is the future like it or not. Here are the reasons why:

• Companies won't want to invest in the hardware costs. Hardware that is continually being made obselete btw
• 5G networks will make the speeds and latency very minimal. 5G provides the infrastructure to make this happen.
• Edge compute moves processing requirements away from the end machine and into the edge of the cloud. I work in this industry and on this technology every day. A lot of companies are looking at applications for this technology and gaming is one of the top ones.

So yeah brehs, this shyt is happening whether yall like it or not.

The key question is who is going to pay for the infrastructure of 5G+edge compute. The telecoms will invest in it, but they're gonna want to charge the OTT services who take advantage of it. This is why net neutrality is such a big deal.

Consumers drive the market. Always remember that. What consumers demand, businesses supply. The demand is not out there for streaming the way it is for consoles. I'm ready to see.microsoft step up and try this so they can be buried once and for all.

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

I was also including the time it takes to develop a system and the 1-2 years after a new system debuts where games are being released for both systems as well. Going by the wiki page, the OG Playstation was in theoretical development in 1986, and Sony/Nintendo had a working deal for a joint system in 1991. PS came out in 94 and was the system until 2000, but everyone didn't instantly jump to PS2 the day it came out. That's roughly 8-10 years of the OG Playstation being *the* system for Sony, and I thought that was the standard.

Basically I'm accepting the fudged numbers that the console makers would give us, because it does take a while to develop dev kits and whatnot for a new platform, and everyone doesn't abandon a console the day the newest one comes out. On the consumer end, I would agree with your numbers. Consumers slow down buying games on old gen within the year of the new gen coming out, but it's still not a full migration. Think about the people who have kids in a household who owned a PS3 and told their kids they aren't getting the PS4 for Christmas in 2013 because "its too expensive and your playstation already works".

Ehhh you said it’s not coming out until 2023. That’s 3 years longer than any other gen. That’s not happening.

And that’s a bad example because ps3 sales absolutely cratered the minute ps4 was released.

 

[Pressure]

What does that have to do with the thread?

Let's see from the article:

Ubisoft co-founder and CEO Yves Guillemot said he believes game consoles only have one more generation left in them before they fade away to be replaced completely by the ability to stream games to a multitude of platform-agnostic devices.

This is directly from one of the largest game software publishers. This is his statement and it goes in line with what we're seeing in cross play of AAA multi-plat titles. For example, fortnite/mindcraft. Both are extremely profitable titles.


Furthering this idea he broached the topic of streaming:

“It is going to help the AAA game industry grow much faster,” he said. “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.”

A big part of that evolution is the growing use already by game developers of cloud servers, where the heaviest work of a computer is being done by outside servers, not in a person’s home or inside their console.

He is merely saying that gaming is going the way the rest of the tech industry has already gone with cloud computing. We've seen this with streaming HD media with plex and other streaming services where the heavy processing it does on a server or in the cloud and the users is streamed the encoded content direct to their device.

We already see this with coding/dev work.

We already see this with office 365/goole apps/AWS.

Thin clients have been the way forward for a long time.

It's absurd to believe this won't be the case in 2030.

Then there's the reality that Moore's law is coming to an end so as computers look into how they will redefine chip manufacturering this obviously means we're going to see changes in order to push the envelope forward.

https://www.top500.org/news/as-moores-law-winds-down-chipmakers-consider-the-path-forward/

People disagreeing with this are making some fundamental mistakes:

1. You're arguing against both software and hardware developers telling you what the path forward is going to look like
2. You're making the same foolish and company killing stubbornness that doomed Blackberry regarding physical keyboards
3. Ignoring that were talking about two gaming generations from now - - Xbox to Xbox one x or ps2 to PS4 pro (both of which are less capable than a burner cell phone )
4. Destined to make the same mistakes as tier 1 part swapped who are now out of worse or making minimum wage as companies have moved their on premise infrastructure to the cloud.
5. CONSOLE STANNING

 

[Pressure]

Consumers drive the market. Always remember that. What consumers demand, businesses supply. The demand is not out there for streaming the way it is for consoles. I'm ready to see.microsoft step up and try this so they can be buried once and for all.

Are consumers really demanding 500 dollar gaming only devices with exclusives? :snapmjlol:

Or are they just craving a gaming experience that convenient, with good content, and the ability to play with friends?

PS4 has outsold the Xbox. PS4 pro has outsold the one x. The Switch has sold 20 million or so. The most powerful Hardware clearly isn't all that gamers crave.

Two of the biggest games (mine craft and Fortnite) play on damn near everything.

 

[SleezyBigSlim]

I think you guys are wrong. this is the future like it or not. Here are the reasons why:

• Companies won't want to invest in the hardware costs. Hardware that is continually being made obselete btw
• 5G networks will make the speeds and latency very minimal. 5G provides the infrastructure to make this happen.
• Edge compute moves processing requirements away from the end machine and into the edge of the cloud. I work in this industry and on this technology every day. A lot of companies are looking at applications for this technology and gaming is one of the top ones.

So yeah brehs, this shyt is happening whether yall like it or not.

The key question is who is going to pay for the infrastructure of 5G+edge compute. The telecoms will invest in it, but they're gonna want to charge the OTT services who take advantage of it. This is why net neutrality is such a big deal.

How old are you? Must be young. If you under 25 I forgive your ignorance. Execs always talk out their ass about future technologies that they'll attempt to leverage. Just because this would benefit Microsoft and Ubisoft business model doesn't mean it will happen. Microsoft wants every to use their cloud or want to own the platform everybody games on. Like they own Windows. Problem is they get no revenue from games running on Windows. They eant to change that, but thry can keep dreaming. Ubisoft just wants to put out gaas games with no effort and make a killing just because their games would be accessible to more people. Ubi only strong markets are pretty much USA and UK. shyt they cant even win in their home country France where Sony and Nintendo published games and exclusives dominate. Ubi can't even get a large foothold in all the foreign markets PS4 and Switch dominate as it is. Publishers sound stupid with this shyt. You want to sell more games then make better games bytch.

 

[Thatrogueassdiaz]

Are consumers really demanding 500 dollar gaming only devices with exclusives? :snapmjlol:

Or are they just craving a gaming experience that convenient, with good content, and the ability to play with friends?

PS4 has outsold the Xbox. PS4 pro has outsold the one x. The Switch has sold 20 million or so. The most powerful Hardware clearly isn't all that gamers crave.

Two of the biggest games (mine craft and Fortnite) play on damn near everything.

You're all over with this post. I don't know what your point is? I never said they crave the most powerful hardware. I said they aren't demanding streaming services for games.

 

[Pressure]

You're all over with this post. I don't know what your point is? I never said they crave the most powerful hardware. I said they aren't demanding streaming services for games.

because there isn't a suitable game streaming service out right now.

 

[Fatboi1]

Let's see from the article:



This is directly from one of the largest game software publishers. This is his statement and it goes in line with what we're seeing in cross play of AAA multi-plat titles. For example, fortnite/mindcraft. Both are extremely profitable titles.


Furthering this idea he broached the topic of streaming:



He is merely saying that gaming is going the way the rest of the tech industry has already gone with cloud computing. We've seen this with streaming HD media with plex and other streaming services where the heavy processing it does on a server or in the cloud and the users is streamed the encoded content direct to their device.

We already see this with coding/dev work.

We already see this with office 365/goole apps/AWS.

Thin clients have been the way forward for a long time.

It's absurd to believe this won't be the case in 2030.

Then there's the reality that Moore's law is coming to an end so as computers look into how they will redefine chip manufacturering this obviously means we're going to see changes in order to push the envelope forward.

As Moore’s Law Winds Down, Chipmakers Consider the Path Forward | TOP500 Supercomputer Sites

People disagreeing with this are making some fundamental mistakes:

1. You're arguing against both software and hardware developers telling you what the path forward is going to look like
2. You're making the same foolish and company killing stubbornness that doomed Blackberry regarding physical keyboards
3. Ignoring that were talking about two gaming generations from now - - Xbox to Xbox one x or ps2 to PS4 pro (both of which are less capable than a burner cell phone )
4. Destined to make the same mistakes as tier 1 part swapped who are now out of worse or making minimum wage as companies have moved their on premise infrastructure to the cloud.
5. CONSOLE STANNING

You have to look at the context of your post and my quote to understand why I asked you that. Your post came off as tangential in regards to the specific topic of streaming games.

As for the mistakes you pointed out: it's not a hard disagree/agree from my understanding, it's just that this isn't something that can be implemented RIGHT NOW full scale EVERYWHERE for everyone. I'm not unfamiliar with streaming games and whatnot and I see it as something that will be more antiquated in the not so distant future. What people are reacting to is Ubisoft talking like, in a year or two for no console to exist and for people to just have to deal with streaming games to their TV/Computer without a dedicated box. No one is suggesting(at least i'm not) that streaming games should not be offered.. I mean for crying out loud it contradicts the last point about console stanning as one would then have to go back and say Sony stans never talked about PS Now. PS Now when it works worked great and I can see something like that being normal in 5~10 years from now.

Streaming games isn't mutually exclusive with not having a dedicated box e.g. Apple TV, Nvidia Shield, FireTV etc. You'll still want a box that can deliver content to markets where the experience won't be marred by physical constraints like Internet connections and in home networking. They can still work in tandem with each other and be an option. People just don't want it to be only ONE way. Also, the comment about an Xbox 1 X or PS4 being less capable than a burner cell phone is quite ridiculous imo. A burner cell phone can't provide the experience of a xbox. It's like saying a movie theater is less capable than a 14" inch laptop with Netflix and torrents. Just because something is profitable on one thing doesn't mean people don't want the other. It'd be like making the mistake of thinking every game should be a F2P battle royale game because it makes a lot of money. Sometimes it's more than just solely making profit but making something that people love. Nintendo isn't going to stop making mainline Pokemon games because Pokemon Go did big numbers.

because there isn't a suitable game streaming service out right now.

Not true. PS Now and Nvidia got something going on right now that works just fine. The biggest knock on PS Now was the pricing and for those who are very sensitive to input lag. PS Now as it is works as intended and like how I've been saying is dependent upon several factors which is why I said having a situation where games are only available through streaming presents problems that can be out of the user's hand.

 

[Pressure]

As for the mistakes you pointed out: it's not a hard disagree/agree from my understanding, it's just that this isn't something that can be implemented RIGHT NOW full scale EVERYWHERE for everyone. I'm not unfamiliar with streaming games and whatnot and I see it as something that will be more antiquated in the not so distant future. What people are reacting to is Ubisoft talking like, in a year or two for no console to exist and for people to just have to deal with streaming games to their TV/Computer without a dedicated box. No one is suggesting(at least i'm not) that streaming games should not be offered.. I mean for crying out loud it contradicts the last point about console stanning as one would then have to go back and say Sony stans never talked about PS Now. PS Now when it works worked great and I can see something like that being normal in 5~10 years from now.

But the article is talking the the console generation after next so a safe estimate is that they're talking about 10 years from now.

Not true. PS Now and Nvidia got something going on right now that works just fine. The biggest knock on PS Now was the pricing and for those who are very sensitive to input lag. PS Now as it is works as intended and like how I've been saying is dependent upon several factors which is why I said having a situation where games are only available through streaming presents problems that can be out of the user's hand.

This was also addressed in the srticle:

“There are quite a few people that are working on streaming, like Nvidia,” Guillemot said. “So, we think it’s a trend and that it will continue to evolve. Eventually, the technology will improve dramatically, which will allow us to have a very smooth experience in the big cities of the world.”

Basically the same thing I said in the post you quoted. Considering the overall goal is as he says,

Gaming, he added, is “less about having specific devices to play a certain game on, but having your favorite games accessible on any device you have.”

Something the Coli stan brigade struggles to accept.


I personally believe PS Now, Xbox game pass, and EA Access are all great products. But they've be much better if instead of having to download a title or delete titles are you run out of space you could just pick the game and play.

 

[phcitywarrior]

I could see this happening.

In the future you have an "all in one" entertainment box, similar to the apple tv, can stream movies, tv shows and full blown games from one box.

I mean this could probably all be done from Smart TVs in the future.

 

[5n0man]

The key question is who is going to pay for the infrastructure of 5G+edge compute. The telecoms will invest in it, but they're gonna want to charge the OTT services who take advantage of it. This is why net neutrality is such a big deal.

This is the very reason why it wont happen tho.

They can develop the technology as much as they want but when the general population doesn't have access then it doesn't work.

As internet speeds increase ISPs will want to cash in on the new technology, Google cant even roll out their fiber optic network properly.

All advancements in internet infrastructure will be bottlenecked by the ISPs holding monopolies, atleast here in the states.

 

[ORDER_66]

I could see this happening.

In the future you have an "all in one" entertainment box, similar to the apple tv, can stream movies, tv shows and full blown games from one box.

I mean this could probably all be done from Smart TVs in the future.

America's internet structure not ready for that level of streaming yet or anything regardless...

 

[Dominic Brehetto]

But the article is talking the the console generation after next so a safe estimate is that they're talking about 10 years from now.



This was also addressed in the srticle:



Basically the same thing I said in the post you quoted. Considering the overall goal is as he says,



Something the Coli stan brigade struggles to accept.


I personally believe PS Now, Xbox game pass, and EA Access are all great products. But they've be much better if instead of having to download a title or delete titles are you run out of space you could just pick the game and play.

I don’t think you understand how ps now works.

PS now is straight up streaming. No downloads. They had it on smart TVs. I bought a year of ps now when it was on sale. It’s straight up Netflix for games. But you need to be hardwired and have great internet speed.

 

[King Sun]

this isn't happening and to the person that compared audio and video to 20+ gb video games

 

[Rice N Beans]

I dunno, I can see it happening. shyt, we can stream 4K videos now with the “sub-par” internet we have. So, why can’t we stream 4K video games?

Latency and sensitivity to drops for anything halfway serious.