Ubisoft CEO: Streaming Will Replace Consoles

Xennon

New member
Apr 24, 2004
37
0
0
So I got a Nvidia Shield TV recently which comes with a 3 month subscription to Geforce Now (NVidia Game Streaming service). Playing Tomb Raider, Darksiders 2, Batman series, honestly, it's bloody good. There is no noticeable lag in the controls and i'm hard pressed to tell (graphically) that it's not running on a local device. Many people here posting about how it isn't feasible yet needs to actually give it a go :)

I'm with Ubi on this one, it's perfectly workable and playable right now (not in all areas and circumstances though), so in another 5-10 years? Don't see why it wouldn't be the norm.
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
The EU wants 100% of the households be covered by a minimum 30Mbps connection by 2020 and 50% to have a minimum of 100 Mbps. So it might kinda work as far as speed goes if you want to stream anything at 60 fps full HD. Since PC gaming is already well over 1080p and 60fps, I doubt we would get anything close to that via streaming.

That being said, that completely ignores the problem of latency which is a ridiculously huge turn-off for anything that requires timing. So no, it won't as far as I'm concerned. I'm on the PC anyways, a shitty one but eh. So maybe my opinion means nothing, but streaming is a shitty service as far as anything interactive goes.

And then we get to the really scary part. Do you honestly want to have Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, EA, Activision and Ubishit to own your games and tell you when you can and when you can't play them? Take them away from you permanently? And lets not pretend that we don't know how good they are at keeping their server work. Absolutely no big publisher knows how to keep their server running. Every single time a online-only or always online DRM shit gets out, people start playing the waiting game for days. What do you think will happen when their server don't need to just check a few tiny things but instead start streaming something that takes a MB or two per second? They can't have something as simple as an authentication server run well without crashing and preventing people from playing a game they literally have on their machines. How will they make the games run a million time on their machines and stream the video to use? Literally impossible for publisher.

I mean if a homeless guy came by and promised to make it run, I would be more likely to believe him than if Ubishits CEO said the same and gave 100% undeniable proof.
 

MonsterCrit

New member
Feb 17, 2015
594
0
0
The Enquirer said:
As much as I may despise Ubisoft, it's a really good point. Last generation consoles moved away from being mere gaming devices and this generation even more so. With the talks of upgradable hardware it is turning into the exact thing a gaming computer is.
So consoles will become PC's . Heh he, oh the irony eh. As for Streaming. No. That's a wet pipe dream publishers want but they're not going to get. This is what sank the RMAH in D3 and basically resulted in rather reduced sales of D3 outside the big 3 regions. The reason is simple. The high speed and reliability required for such a thing feasible is non existant except for a very samll percentage. I mean You think lag is bad for you COD.. imagine a precision platformer and you have to contend with lag spikes..

This is furthered with the continued pushing of cross platform play. Soon it'll ultimately come down to a matter of "do you want short or long term costs reduced?"
It's more a matter that console manufacturers are hitting the crunch point. Developers are seeing less and less reasons for exclusivity and with fewer note worth exclusives, each console becomes a harder sell. The simple truth is that a PC is a superior gaming machine mostly because it can allow for more types of game play.
 

The Enquirer

New member
Apr 10, 2013
1,007
0
0
MonsterCrit said:
The Enquirer said:
As much as I may despise Ubisoft, it's a really good point. Last generation consoles moved away from being mere gaming devices and this generation even more so. With the talks of upgradable hardware it is turning into the exact thing a gaming computer is.
So consoles will become PC's . Heh he, oh the irony eh. As for Streaming. No. That's a wet pipe dream publishers want but they're not going to get. This is what sank the RMAH in D3 and basically resulted in rather reduced sales of D3 outside the big 3 regions. The reason is simple. The high speed and reliability required for such a thing feasible is non existant except for a very samll percentage. I mean You think lag is bad for you COD.. imagine a precision platformer and you have to contend with lag spikes..

This is furthered with the continued pushing of cross platform play. Soon it'll ultimately come down to a matter of "do you want short or long term costs reduced?"
It's more a matter that console manufacturers are hitting the crunch point. Developers are seeing less and less reasons for exclusivity and with fewer note worth exclusives, each console becomes a harder sell. The simple truth is that a PC is a superior gaming machine mostly because it can allow for more types of game play.
You actually managed to convey what I was trying to much better than I did. *claps*
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
The Enquirer said:
As much as I may despise Ubisoft, it's a really good point. Last generation consoles moved away from being mere gaming devices and this generation even more so. With the talks of upgradable hardware it is turning into the exact thing a gaming computer is.
Well, except it's still not going to be upgradable like a PC. Nor is it likely to ever be. You will lose a huge market if you do that.

thebobmaster said:
Until data caps are removed, and bandwidth is strong everywhere, I don't think this will happen yet. He brushes off the bandwidth cost, but that is a rather serious obstacle.
Not only that, but I'm playing one of Ubisoft's current offerings, The Division, and they can't even make that run smoothly. Like, every time more than two of us are playing together, there's some sort of issue with my friends and I staying in a group.

I mean, there's also issues with data caps and bandwidth, but at a fundamental level this is stupid. Really, really stupid.



Fox12 said:
Didn't they say that last generation?
Dunno about them specifically, but every generation of consoles is the last generation of consoles. People were insisting there would be no PS4 or Xbone, so....

As much as I hate to say it, though, he may be right. I'm sure the companies would love the DRM and lack of ownership that would come with something like this.
While I don't doubt the desire, I doubt the feasibility. There's a ton of hurdles to this. The way Comcast runs things if I have to go streaming or go home, my only choice is go home. They have been in the area over 25 years now and have not upgraded their systems meaningfully. There's no real competition in the area and in fact they may have actually worked to keep competition out. This is not unique to my area, either. Companies like Comcast have been slow to upgrade and have fought to keep service and competition down and prices up.

I mean, it could happen that in the next six years or so, Google Fiber penetrates the bulk of the US market, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 

The Enquirer

New member
Apr 10, 2013
1,007
0
0
Something Amyss said:
The Enquirer said:
As much as I may despise Ubisoft, it's a really good point. Last generation consoles moved away from being mere gaming devices and this generation even more so. With the talks of upgradable hardware it is turning into the exact thing a gaming computer is.
Well, except it's still not going to be upgradable like a PC. Nor is it likely to ever be. You will lose a huge market if you do that.
Keep in mind they've mentioned a desire for upgradeable hardware. Granted I imagine it is going to be very limited, even without comparing it to the upgrade ranges on a pc, even a pre-built
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I have relatively good broadband Internet, and I still can't be 100% certain if I'm going to get enough bandwidth in a given night to watch Game of Thrones at a consistent frame-rate.

Broadband may get better (please, God, let it get better! And take out Comcast while you're at it, while you're performing miracles?), but it isn't going to eliminate latency. It isn't going to make big publishers who can't keep their servers in shape to run the much-less-strenuous burden of running the network underpinnings of their own games suddenly competent to run servers that send out adaptive real-time video streams at 30 or more frames per second. It isn't going to eliminate the trend of every Tom, Dick, and Microsoft wanting to use my bandwidth to ply me with ads. And if you think a corrupted save is a pain now, wait until it's all cloud-based and you have neither recourse nor proof if your game-playing time abruptly goes up in smoke (which you will probably have signed an agreement against seeking recourse about anyway.)

Guillemot may well be right that the current console cycle is untenable. But streaming isn't the panacea.
 

The Lunatic

Princess
Jun 3, 2010
2,291
0
0
It's an interesting idea.

I mean the latest generation of consoles have been extremely disappointing from a hardware standpoint. Barely able to meet a very low standard of 30 FPS and running at resolutions lower than 1080.

Streaming would eliminate this (In theory), assuming sufficient data and so on.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
The Enquirer said:
Keep in mind they've mentioned a desire for upgradeable hardware. Granted I imagine it is going to be very limited, even without comparing it to the upgrade ranges on a pc, even a pre-built
That's why the "like a PC" part was in that sentence. There's also a marked difference between "desire for" and "practicality of." Publishers desired a piece of used game sales and failed. They desired stronger DRM and failed. They could want all future consoles to be nothing but PCs themselves, but they're beholden to what the market will support. PC gamers already have PCs. Console gamers are buying an all-in-one box. Now, there's some overlap (console exclusives, etc), but people aren't likely to upgrade their PS5 or XboxTwo to play Madden or COD or the big titles that the pubs try and chase sales of.

This is especially a big deal for a company like Ubisoft, because if my choices are to buy a game locked down with Uplay or not buy it at all, I'll skip it. Console versions are the only reason Ubi's got any money from me aside from a few bucks here and there on Rocksmith stuff in the last couple of years.

I mean, honestly, one need only look at the Xbox OneEighty to see a consumer pushback.
 

Ambitiousmould

Why does it say I'm premium now?
Apr 22, 2012
447
0
0
The name 'Yves Guillemot' absolutely sounds like a Discworld character. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying it does.

OT: It's not going to happen. Internet isn't going to be good enough for many, many, many years, and Ubisoft likes their money now. Besides, I don't think there'd be much demand. People are used to not owning the things they watch (and even read) between the cinema, how telly works (and libraries) it's always worked that way. I don't think that people are going to be willing to make a step toward a similar system with games. And it isn't just about keeping the status quo. DVDs and suchlike show that people prefer to own, even when the current and standard system is based on paying for a limited viewing.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
What about us old fucks who like to own our entertainment in some form? I'm still not even too keen on digital purchases.
This wasn't even my first thought, but yeah.

1 - Internet. Guess what, guys? Not everyone actually has fantastically fast internet. And in fact many of them don't have a choice in the matter either! Hahaha, suckers, guess you just can't play games anymore! Fuck youuuuuu!

2 - Streaming games. Hey guys, you know the sort of input lag you experience in almost every MMO ever? Imagine getting that in your single-player games too! THE FUTURE!!!!!

3 - Combination of the above! Anybody else remember the launch window of literally every online video game ever? And how it tends to be impossible to play for roughly a week or so in the worst-case circumstances? And how there's usually weekly maintenance that prohibits you from playing the game you wanted to play, for hours at a time? And how if the game servers happen to be overloaded it's also impossible to get in and play, or you do get in and the server is so stressed that you're getting lag even though your connection is fine? Wouldn't you love to get all of that in your single-player games too?!?!?!

4 - What Shinji said. Hey, who the fuck wants to actually own anything they buy anymore, anyway? Look at how many games sales are made on Steam, after all! Also, who the fuck cares about actually going back to play old games years after the fact, when the streaming server will either not offer said games anymore or if they have their own game-specific servers then said servers will be dead? Why would you want to play Assassin's Creed II when you could play Assassin's Creed XXIV: Generations?!?!!? YOU'LL BUY OUR NEW GAMES IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE, DAMMIT.

(Disclaimer: I may or may not have had a vodka-heavy mudslide with dinner, and thus some of my filters may or may not be switched off.)

(EDIT: And yes, I recognize that with better internet, many of these problems would not really be problems anymore, but considering how ISPs run things, I wouldn't count on them even allowing the systems to get to the point where streaming would be feasible for the majority of people. I'm not even comfortable with the way publishers killed off physical copies of PC games, I will straight up riot if they try killing off "owning" games in a general sense.)
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
(EDIT: And yes, I recognize that with better internet, many of these problems would not really be problems anymore, but considering how ISPs run things, I wouldn't count on them even allowing the systems to get to the point where streaming would be feasible for the majority of people.
Yeah, and about not counting on them....

I know Yves is talking speculatively right now, but I sincerely hope they're not building any plans around it. Because I don't see the US ISPs allowing this without some sort of law. And most of the laws that have been passed go the other way. I mean, in an ideal world, I wouldn't mind streaming some games if the price was right. I hear your complaint about ownership of games and agree, but...some games are just junk food for me. And aside from Rocksmith, I can't think of an Ubi game that doesn't fit the bill. Maybe I'm forgetting one.

And even Rocksmith it's more a fun way to practice my guitar work than "this game is so great I have to replay it!"

But, you know, latest online shooter #462. I'm going to get my fun out of it, but once my friends move on, I will as well. And I will almost certainly never look back.

It's just...ugh. Earlier this month I had a fight with my ISP because they said I didn't pay my bill and I had a check copy that said otherwise, and they tried to get me to pay them more money I couldn't afford to get things back on over their screwup and...well, you don't need all the details. I was without internet. And several of my single-player, on-disc or HDD games either didn't work or featured limited functionality. And they want to put that all server side? Yeah, screw that.

I mean, that's the thing. I do consume a lot of media through streaming and/or digitally. But streaming and digital are tools, not the whole toolbox. If we one day get to the point where game streaming doesn't suck, it'll be a good thing. But I dread the idea of a stream-only future. And not just for when the net goes down.

I'm not even comfortable with the way publishers killed off physical copies of PC games, I will straight up riot if they try killing off "owning" games in a general sense.)
For all intents and purposes, they already have.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Something Amyss said:
But, you know, latest online shooter #462. I'm going to get my fun out of it, but once my friends move on, I will as well. And I will almost certainly never look back.
Even my junk food games are ones I like to occasionally return to every now and then. Admittedly, I don't play competitive multi-player games (and even most of the multi-player games I do play I play as solo as possible these days) so my junk games tend to be more Titan Quest or Prototype rather than Call of Duty.

But I dread the idea of a stream-only future. And not just for when the net goes down.
I get incredibly angry every time I hear some video game journalist/critic say that digital games are the future, because there's always the implication (and in some cases explicit statements) that physical copies need to be killed forever. It's like, you guys are supposed to be advocating for more consumer choice, not less.

I'm not even comfortable with the way publishers killed off physical copies of PC games, I will straight up riot if they try killing off "owning" games in a general sense.)
For all intents and purposes, they already have.
Well, that's why I put owning in scare quotes. While Steam nominally can control whether I can access a game or not, I still have it installed on my system and there are ways around the system should the need arise. As soon as that game is being stored entirely on some server at a corporation's behest, I have no choice but to shut up and take whatever they give me (and the fact that that's already how digital installation works is another reason I don't like this "digital is the future" thing).
 

sjard

New member
Mar 21, 2008
23
0
0
Bandwidth isn't the problem. Bandwidth for streaming is maybe there for most people with broadband already. But again, that isn't the issue. Latency is the issue. You can have a 100GBPS fiber connection, so you can download around ten gigabytes per second, but if your average latency is 180ms for the 10kb data packets... forget playing anything multiplayer. FPS multiplayer servers regularly had auto kicks for anything over about 90ms pings five years ago.
 

thewatergamer

New member
Aug 4, 2012
647
0
0
Sounds great in theory, but as long as the "Internet Service Providers" of the world continue to offer absolute garbage and quash any form of competition, its not going to happen, but get everyone fast and reliable internet and yeah I absolutely think so
 

MythicMatt

Phantom of the forum
Feb 4, 2015
101
0
0
So, it looks like the general consensus here is "Streaming isn't happening, ISPs everywhere hate people having money".

...What do ISPs even spend all the money they make on? Cause it sure as hell isn't better customer experience.
Just yesterday, I was booted onto the Xbox dashboard because my internet faltered for thirty seconds. From my single-player game. Which I apparently didn't own, despite the disk being in the console. Shortly afterwards, my console restarted itself.

Now imagine what would've happened with streaming.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
Joccaren said:
Eh, we're talking consoles. You're streaming 720p at possibly 30FPS at best. That gets you down to about 110 Mb/s. Still pretty big, but much more achievable.
And again, consoles. Compression for "Convenience" is likely to be a sacrifice many will make. Its the whole reason they're on the consoles in the first place - ease of use over quality.

Well, point 1, Quantum effects. Lots of work still to be done there, but its happening.
Second option is more likely in a short term; we find a work around.

We play FPS games and, dear god not always, sometimes its horrible, but other times you can play with seemingly no latency, and everything instant, despite at least 100ms in ping. How? Why? What? That should be impossible, it makes it seem like latency means nothing?!
Interpolation, algorithms to minimise the effects of latency, good server->player communications that allow the player to complete actions and see them played out and, so long as its not outside the realm of reasonable possibility, the server accepts it and sends a handful of modifiers that the local system natively just blends into the gameplay, rather than rubber banding. A lot of the time its not perfect. But improvements are constantly being made. Software workarounds, and game design choices to minimise the effects of latency, will likely make up for the 'speed of light' problem. Exactly how I'm not going to pretend to know - if I did I'd patent it and get it built for a shit ton of potential money. But designers will find ways to minimise the impact. Hell, from a game design point of view, most actions could have a follow through time of 0.5 seconds, as opposed to instantaneous, for the animations. In those 0.5 seconds, at any point, the next input can be entered, and it'll be carried out at the end. This gives your game time for the ping to return. It puts the focus more on timing than twitch, but that's not really a bad thing either.
I dont think so. Console gamers too seem to be demanding games at higher resolution and framerate now. Just look how much attention is paid when PS4 has higher resolution or fps than Xbox One. Besides, if ubisoft wants streaming its going to want streaming everywhere, inclding PCs, and [email protected] is the bareminimum pcs are going to demand.

Quantum entanglement is probably the most realistic solution to faster than light communication. i wouldnt say its happening though. we can barely agree that the concept exists so far, not effect it in any way yet.

there is no workaround for the speed of light. the only real workaround would be to build a dataserver in every town and village no matter how small. good luck with that.

The reason you can play FPS games with seemingly no latency online right now is because everything is calculated on your computer and only confirmed with server every once in a while. the input from your controller/mouse is instantly being calculated on your end and only gets corrected if server disagrees with it (what is often called rubberbanding).

In streaming you loose the local calculation and display, so you will feel the full effects of latency.

Action animations and reaction delays like that makes for what we call "floaty" gameplay and is universally hated.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
shrekfan246 said:
Even my junk food games are ones I like to occasionally return to every now and then. Admittedly, I don't play competitive multi-player games (and even most of the multi-player games I do play I play as solo as possible these days) so my junk games tend to be more Titan Quest or Prototype rather than Call of Duty.
I game a lot socially. TBH, it's one of the only ways I spend time with some of my friends. So slapping down sixty or even a hundred bucks for a few months of time isn't all that bad to me. Though, TBH, I'm kinda glad my friends are all sick of COD. There's only so far I can justify going.

...though TBH, I can't picture going back to Prototype, either. That's more because I didn't enjoy it much, though.

As another example, I buy the Assassin's Creed games on sale because I always have a fun time playing them. But once I'm done, I'm pretty done. I object to the idea of having them taken from me on principle, but if I lost access to them, I probably wouldn't care. There are definitely games I would miss (Superman 64 >.>), there would be quite a few I wouldn't care about. As long as the process was up-front, at least.

I get incredibly angry every time I hear some video game journalist/critic say that digital games are the future, because there's always the implication (and in some cases explicit statements) that physical copies need to be killed forever. It's like, you guys are supposed to be advocating for more consumer choice, not less.
Game journalism (as a whole, anyway) has and probably always will be an industry mouthpiece. As such, they're really not journalists, but PR. And as such, I expect this.

MythicMatt said:
...What do ISPs even spend all the money they make on? Cause it sure as hell isn't better customer experience.
My guess is copious amounts of whatever drug is trending.
 

Joccaren

New member
Mar 29, 2011
2,600
0
0
Strazdas said:
I dont think so. Console gamers too seem to be demanding games at higher resolution and framerate now. Just look how much attention is paid when PS4 has higher resolution or fps than Xbox One. Besides, if ubisoft wants streaming its going to want streaming everywhere, inclding PCs, and [email protected] is the bareminimum pcs are going to demand.
I think there's a reason he said consoles, rather than PCs, are going to be outdated by streaming. As when you hit 1080p streaming, we'll be using 8K displays and demanding that instead. You can't keep up with the PC scene, it just moves too fast.
And console players demand higher resolution and better framerate... yet they don't get it, and buy anyway. Because more than resolution and framerate, they like the convenience and relative cheapness. Its why they're not gaming on the computer half the time. In fact, historically, the consoles that have gone for more power, have been flops. Things just don't work out as well on many levels when that happens. This generation the PS4 is killing the Xbone, but a lot of that is in the terrible rap that the Xbone got near launch, where it focused on being a home media spywar... entertainment device, whilst Sony focused on the games. That and people are getting sick of Microsofts Shit, TBH. Had both been marketed the same way, they likely would have been pretty even, potentially even the Xbone pulling ahead with a lower asking price than the PS4.

Quantum entanglement is probably the most realistic solution to faster than light communication. i wouldnt say its happening though. we can barely agree that the concept exists so far, not effect it in any way yet.
No, we know it exists, and we can entangle particles. The only problem is the world record for the length of time we have artificially entangled two particles is about 13 seconds or so. We've got a lot of work to go in getting a sustained entanglement, and once that's done we've got to figure out how to use them to communicate, and then you'll have to work around the fact that an entangled particle only has one pair... There are a lot of engineering problems to figure out, but give us 200 years and we'll have nailed it. 200 years ago we were still throwing our sewage out into the street, cars didn't exist, and white man was trying to colonise Africa. 3-4 generations is a lot of time for things to change.

there is no workaround for the speed of light. the only real workaround would be to build a dataserver in every town and village no matter how small. good luck with that.
You say that...
Its the same sort of thing as people in the old times saying there was no workaround for not being born with wings, and then hot air balloons were invented and we could float through the sky.
Additionally it doesn't need to be everywhere. Just focused around major living areas, where most users will be using it. Why build one out in woop woop for 5 people who play games? Not going to happen. Having one centre cater to 20,000 gamers? Yeah, sounds much better. Rurals get short changed, but then again they always do. From the company's perspective, income is more important than reaching everyone with the technology, and shortchanging a 100,000 more remote users, whilst maintaining a core userbase in the 10s of millions, is a pretty decent deal.

The reason you can play FPS games with seemingly no latency online right now is because everything is calculated on your computer and only confirmed with server every once in a while. the input from your controller/mouse is instantly being calculated on your end and only gets corrected if server disagrees with it (what is often called rubberbanding).
Precisely, a workaround for the speed of light problem, which I thought we just said didn't exist. No, the workaround won't be the same as for in games, however such workarounds can and do exist. Processing, naturally, has to partially be done client side. Considering the TVs will have CPUs at that point, and some already do, I don't see that as too far outside the realm of possibility in 20 years or so, to have the TV apply the same sort of algorithm streaming video uses to kill its file size [You watch a 1080p movie over 2 hours. Why are you not storing Terrabytes of data? Because intelligent algorithms cut that down to usually around 2Gb, with minimal loss in quality most of the time], to be able to send multiple frames of data, so they will play whilst waiting for a response from the client, which tells them the next 5 frames to display, or however many is normal for normal latency.
In this way the screen can continue to present flawless images, whilst awaiting the next bit of info from the server. Visually, latency isn't much of a problem after this. Still has some issues, but again, intelligent software creation can act as a workaround here. Say the TV sends not only the input, but which frame it was displaying at the time the input was entered. When you can display, say, 10 frames between server responses, and you send back that in the previous batch, frame 7 was when the button was pressed, the server can have a check it runs to see if that was within the 'bounds' of when an action should have been performed, and if you have the animations for success and failure start of nearly the same, you can just swap out the ending, and control latency is reduced as well.

In streaming you loose the local calculation and display, so you will feel the full effects of latency.
Eh, you lose some of the local calculation and display. There is no "It must be 100%" rule for streaming, and with processors in the TVs that accept streaming, you can rely on a small amount of client side processing to help you along.

Action animations and reaction delays like that makes for what we call "floaty" gameplay and is universally hated.
Depends on the game. See the Arkham series games. Don't feel floaty, and animations for attacks can take half a second at times. There's also the gameplay nicety of needing to time your attacks properly, I often found myself only inputting commands once or twice a second. Twitch gameplay? Yeah, going to suffer the same problems online twitch gameplay suffers today. Timing based gameplay, or god forbid, non-action oriented gameplay? Yeah, it'll get on fine.

Its not guaranteed to happen in the next 20 years, but its not outside the realm of possibility that streaming games could become a thing. Certainly not yet, but its not beyond the realm of possibility that, when technology advances a bit, and the industry sees a couple of properly mainstream pushes involving both game developers and hardware makers, and service providers, towards the streaming style, it could be achieved. It wouldn't be perfect, but then again nothing is. It'd be an undertaking, but it could be done. With a bit more technology, again, presently its not there.
 

kris40k

New member
Feb 12, 2015
350
0
0
We just need to elect Google for President, because corporations are people, my friend, and then everyone in the US will get 1 gig fiber pipes right to their door [sup][sup]and monitoring of everything[/sup][/sup] so they can stream as much as they want.