Of course the internet will get faster. But as soon gaming becomes a dubscription based streaming service, I'm out. I only need to point at PS Now. I want to be able to buy the games I want, do with them whatever I want, whenever. And if one smartass sends a DDos attack, no-one would be able to play their games. I'm more than ok with digital, but streaming is only viable in a few ways. Also, if servers are shut down, the game is gone...

If Nintendo survives, dedicated gaming hardware will survive. And, as long as dedicated gaming hardware exists, the PlayStation brand would dominate (as much as I'd like Ninty to do so). So, Sony will stay put.

...that's what I'd like to believe. Unfortunately, I've been eating my words for years.

Personally, I don't think there will be a PS5, but rather a PSTV 2 (Though they may just call it the PS5 due to brand recognition). It'll basically be a PSNow box, but with the ability to use things like Netflix too. Because of this, I could see the PS4 last a very long life possibly till 2020. On the handheld side of things, I think the Vita will have a extremely long life in Japan, and Sony won't make another handheld. It'll be discontinued MUCH sooner in the West though. The one curveball to all of this is if PSNow completly flops.

Xbox and especially Nintendo are harder to predict, though. I guess I can see Xbox doing the same thing, though maybe a generation later. Then again, Xbox could very well stick to consoles. Nintendo could go in any direction though, Knowing Nintendo, I feel like they would just continue to make consoles and handhelds. Assuming they would be the only ones left doing this, I think they would sell well since there isn't really a choice for people who don't want to go Streaming/Digital only. This will cause them to regain third parties, so the third parties can cash into the market that doesn't want to go Streaming/Digital. This would presumably go on until Nintendo goes bankrupt, which would happen when this strategy becomes unprofitable. There's also the possibility that another company steps in with this strategy to get a slice of this marketshare, though as to what company this could be, I don't know.

I hope this doesn't happen, and if it does I feel like its the day I'll probably quit gaming, but it is the way I see things going.

Given the horrible state of global internet quality, and the trend towards data caps and content control (see : net neutrality debates), this is not in sight for a looooooooooong time.

To abandon offline gamers or gamers with shoddy internet would be to cut one's own throat.

Hell, I've seen research that shows that more and more of the younger generation are skipping home internet entirely, and relying on crap data caps from their wireless companies (eg : 2GB or 5GB a month, metered after that for huge fees). Whereas having an internet sub was virtually mandatory a decade ago (even if it was crappy 768k or 1.5mbit DSL or even dialup), now many are just relying on cell phones.

This reminds me of the people in the 80s who told us all we were headed to a 'paperless' society.

As someone who works in IT and legal in the year 2014, let me tell you that's a huge laugh. We're drowning in more paper than ever because people can generate and share it so quickly.

fast internet already exists now. The problem is not all countries value internet speed. Here they are rolling out fibre network (which was meant to be completed years ago), taken 6 years so far and the best you can get is 100mbit if you willing to pay lots of $$$$ a month for it.

So unless some internationa body mandates internet must be X speed to the house by 2020 or your country is cut off from the world internet then no country is going to be in a rush to roll out affordable internet just to satisfy gamers.

Not true at all. TV's have built in internet, and you don't need to build in much processing capacity to have a TV capable of streaming any and all game content. Or you can have it streaming from your PC to your TV. In any case have "a box" connected to your TV does not mean a console. And if your cable box has sufficient processor capacity to stream games then that's the only box you'll need on a non-internet enabled TV. MS had the right idea, but the wrong approach. You don;t turn a gaming machine into an entertainment box, you turn entertaiment devices into game streaming boxes, that's how you get the all in one. And every manufacturer will be in the game.

That's fine but you still have to have a Nintendo controller and Nintendo IP. Same goes for Sony and MS. I don't think they're going to want to give up that control. 

You're crazy if you think companies like MS and Nintendo are just going to whore out their IP to cable companies. They will also want to sell their own controllers etc. 

All three of them will still sell streaming devices and all three of them will lock their services down behind those devices. I don't see it happening any other way.

I agree that Microsoft will go first.

I doubt there will be a Playstation 5. Virtual Consoles are the future. Once we start seeing PS4 at sub 200, then if they have a "PS5" it will likely be starter hardware so that it can run games without an internet connection, but have native streaming and the OS be downloadable on PC.

Steam OS is a great example of a virtual console.
MS will probably be the first to jump on it, because of regardless of their performance with the XB1, they are a software company and they are already pushing digital distrubtion heavily.

Nintendo will be the last because hardware sales are important to them to a degree unlike the others so, they'll have to reorganized their business struture.

Hence this generation will be as long, possibly even longer than last gen because, console hardware will become a thing of the past in 8-10 years. Even with a ludicrously short gen of 5 years, -_-, making a PS5 and XB2 would make little sense.