Ubisoft CEO: Streaming Will Replace Consoles
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
That would require not just a huge leap in technology but also consumers to lose half of their brain cells. PEOPLE LIKE OWNING THINGS. And why would anyone accept streaming when storage is CHEAPER THAN EVER? You can get a 4Tb HDD for $100 or so. And that's a technology that keeps improving and getting cheaper. 2 years from now SSD of that capacity will probably cost the same. So why would people want to rely on a streaming service?
When streaming becomes the only way to play games I'll stop being a gamer.
When streaming becomes the only way to play games I'll stop being a gamer.
No they wont. because of multitude of problems. Heres a couple:
1. Latency. Unless you are going to have a datacenter in every town and village, latency will make streaming gaming not viable. noone likes having a 50/50 chance that when they press a button the game is going to either react or not react. Even things like wired controlls are a thing because wireless ones, even locally, increase latency and people feel the difference playing.
2. Visuals quality. At the moment when you play a videogame at 1080p@60fps you are streaming data to your TV/monitor at the rate of ~600MB/s. Good luck streaming that over the internet for 8 hours straight, for thousands of people. And before you start screaming compression - NO. fuck compression. There will be no loss of visual quality when i game. its bad enough i have to put up with that shit on youtube and netflix.
1. Latency. Unless you are going to have a datacenter in every town and village, latency will make streaming gaming not viable. noone likes having a 50/50 chance that when they press a button the game is going to either react or not react. Even things like wired controlls are a thing because wireless ones, even locally, increase latency and people feel the difference playing.
2. Visuals quality. At the moment when you play a videogame at 1080p@60fps you are streaming data to your TV/monitor at the rate of ~600MB/s. Good luck streaming that over the internet for 8 hours straight, for thousands of people. And before you start screaming compression - NO. fuck compression. There will be no loss of visual quality when i game. its bad enough i have to put up with that shit on youtube and netflix.
there is no bandwidth cost (yes, data caps is a lie and a scam). There is bandwidth throughput. Thats the main problem.thebobmaster said:
is your dad a time traveler for the 90s? Joking aside, Ubisoft is from France. Here in Europe 100mbps is considered "entry tier" connection.Elfgore said:
well.... fuck.hentropy said:
soon you wont be buying games, you will be renting them. For example of this see: All licensed software. they license you stuff like Photoshop or Autocad for a number of years. the years are up and you wont be able to use them anymore.Houseman said:
I can give him 100-200 years and i promise he wont solve it. Why? because it would require us finding a way to transmit data faster than the speed of light and it becoming so commonplace it would be used for gaming in every house. good luck with that.Joccaren said:
No, he was talking about Digital sales last generation, and it turned out to be true as most sales nowadays are digital and we got stuff like BF1 being digital-only release.Fox12 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.
I think streaming will take over in say 20-30 years but we are no where near getting there at the moment.
It's already been tried, no one gave a crap about onlive and no one gave a crap about Playstation now.
We get it, companies are dead set on us not owning games, they don't want used games, they just want full control over what games we're playing. Get that old Battlefield 3 out of the way and make way for 4 and 4 only.
Ubisoft, the shitlords of DRM unsurprisingly are for the penultimate DRM, the one you can't pirate, the one that you don't own, the one you rely entirely on them for.
Their words have no weight. After their limited install BS was hated they moved to always online and everyone hated that, it was constantly being hit with DDoS because it was stupid and now Uplay which has become stagnant and has yet to improve over the years it's been out while the completion gets better and better.
What insight do they have on DRM when every damn policy they push has failed on it's ass? Every statement about improving customer service has been either a lie or not attempted.
Ubisfoft thinks that games future is streaming? Good for Ubisoft. Let's forget people all over with strict data caps, the crap lag, the lower bitrate to compensate that makes all their hyper pretty games look muddy and dull and, again the input lag.
Right, the CEO thinks this, not someone with any technical knowledge. Gooooood for him.
We get it, companies are dead set on us not owning games, they don't want used games, they just want full control over what games we're playing. Get that old Battlefield 3 out of the way and make way for 4 and 4 only.
Ubisoft, the shitlords of DRM unsurprisingly are for the penultimate DRM, the one you can't pirate, the one that you don't own, the one you rely entirely on them for.
Their words have no weight. After their limited install BS was hated they moved to always online and everyone hated that, it was constantly being hit with DDoS because it was stupid and now Uplay which has become stagnant and has yet to improve over the years it's been out while the completion gets better and better.
What insight do they have on DRM when every damn policy they push has failed on it's ass? Every statement about improving customer service has been either a lie or not attempted.
Ubisfoft thinks that games future is streaming? Good for Ubisoft. Let's forget people all over with strict data caps, the crap lag, the lower bitrate to compensate that makes all their hyper pretty games look muddy and dull and, again the input lag.
Right, the CEO thinks this, not someone with any technical knowledge. Gooooood for him.
Has this guy beamed down from Starship Enterprise? Seriously internet infrastructure in Australia is in a constant state of horseshit because being a small nation we have a single major telco and when the government decided to create the National Broadband Network and rent it out as a utility to ISPs the opposition of the day immediately started to dismantle it upon gaining power for no other reason other than the fact that it wasn't their own idea.
With this in mind, I think it would be a good idea for the CEO's of most major game companies to spend some time in less well serviced areas their customer base live in. Might make them crowbar their heads out of their arses.
With this in mind, I think it would be a good idea for the CEO's of most major game companies to spend some time in less well serviced areas their customer base live in. Might make them crowbar their heads out of their arses.
Yeah, I just love latency. In fact, I love it so much I've secretly yearned for the day I can experience it in my single player games.
Seriously, I'm well aware that internet access will only get better with time, but we aren't anywhere near the point that the majority of people's internet can support streaming to a reasonable degree that would be acceptable to even casual audiences.
Seriously, I'm well aware that internet access will only get better with time, but we aren't anywhere near the point that the majority of people's internet can support streaming to a reasonable degree that would be acceptable to even casual audiences.
So basically, Ubisoft have a hard on for putting Uplay into every home, console or PC gamer alike?
Until fast, unlimited data connection are standard in the US streaming games is little more than fantasy. Even when that is available OnLive died because it sucked, it was like playing a normal game but with a couple of tenths of input lag. The number of players willing to accept noticeable input lag is no doubt a lot smaller than Ubisoft thinks it is, although the way their games run we might not be able to tell the difference.
Until fast, unlimited data connection are standard in the US streaming games is little more than fantasy. Even when that is available OnLive died because it sucked, it was like playing a normal game but with a couple of tenths of input lag. The number of players willing to accept noticeable input lag is no doubt a lot smaller than Ubisoft thinks it is, although the way their games run we might not be able to tell the difference.
I'm sure he and his partners are licking their lips at the thought of total control over consumer ownership. Am curious, does he pay his taxes? He talks with the air of a person that doesn't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Deciding to bang the 'always online' drum, Ubisoft? Go ask Adam Orth and Don Mattrick how that turned out for them.
Having tried Playstation Live extensively last month, I could see this happening, as long as the price is right.
But then again, knowing how people are, even though they pay 40-60 for 1 game now, when streaming comes along they will suddenly expect to only pay 5 bucks a month or else it's a rip off. This idea is bound to fail with how moronic the general populous is, sadly.
But then again, knowing how people are, even though they pay 40-60 for 1 game now, when streaming comes along they will suddenly expect to only pay 5 bucks a month or else it's a rip off. This idea is bound to fail with how moronic the general populous is, sadly.
I'd go as far to say, not only will it not happen in the next 10-30 years, it will not happen, period.
With the constant evolution of resolutions (4k eventually becoming a standard which in itself is still miles off) as well as technology (Virtual Reality, holotech) there simply is no way for internet speeds to keep up, short of some miracle new invention that gives a significant portion of the planet, ridiculous bandwidth for little cost.
In the real world, a ton of people can still barely (if at all) stream 720p reliably, let alone stream games with zero noticeable input lag.
No, I think reliance on hardware is going to increase if anything. It won't be consoles as we know them, but judging by the amount of shit you need to make even the most basic current VR games work, there's no way in hell games will be streaming only.
With the constant evolution of resolutions (4k eventually becoming a standard which in itself is still miles off) as well as technology (Virtual Reality, holotech) there simply is no way for internet speeds to keep up, short of some miracle new invention that gives a significant portion of the planet, ridiculous bandwidth for little cost.
In the real world, a ton of people can still barely (if at all) stream 720p reliably, let alone stream games with zero noticeable input lag.
No, I think reliance on hardware is going to increase if anything. It won't be consoles as we know them, but judging by the amount of shit you need to make even the most basic current VR games work, there's no way in hell games will be streaming only.
I can see how this could be possible, but not everyone would be able to enjoy it. Therefore the developers would be losing a huge chunk of their customers.
I tried Onlive and it had a 2 second delay which made it unplayable for me, must have something to do with the fact that i live in eastern Europe.
I tried Onlive and it had a 2 second delay which made it unplayable for me, must have something to do with the fact that i live in eastern Europe.
Given the shitty business practices of American ISPs and a sizable portion of many countries not having access to fast enough internet it will not happen for a long time. Plus they would also have to solve the technical issues like high ping time and input delay, after all that is what buried onlive.
That said I do think that consoles will try to switch to digital distribution because lets face it publishers would absolutely love unavoidable DRM and killing the used game market.
The only thing I think he is right about are consoles as we know it going obsolete, this generation is already starting to show the cracks with the whole upgraded PS4 thing. Technology is moving fast enough to obsolete the console hardware very quickly especially when they are using what is now at best a mid range GPU from 2012. I think they might go the route of upgradeable modules for consoles in the future not unlike what the N64 did.
That said I do think that consoles will try to switch to digital distribution because lets face it publishers would absolutely love unavoidable DRM and killing the used game market.
The only thing I think he is right about are consoles as we know it going obsolete, this generation is already starting to show the cracks with the whole upgraded PS4 thing. Technology is moving fast enough to obsolete the console hardware very quickly especially when they are using what is now at best a mid range GPU from 2012. I think they might go the route of upgradeable modules for consoles in the future not unlike what the N64 did.
We do have an invention that gives us massive amounts of bandwidth for not that expensive a cost, its called fiber. The theoretical limit is the speed of light, the only thing that holds it back is the hardware at each end of the cable. The biggest obstacle to fiber rollout are the greedy ISPs in places like America and Australia are forcing people to stick with copper so they can nickel and dime the shit out of bandwidth and data costs.ron1n 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.Strazdas said:
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.