I gather most people don’t want to enslave themselves to the whims of publishers so I doubt it. I’m not against game streaming services the same way as I’m not against Netflix, but only as an option because you’re just renting a game instead of owning anything. And renting something isn’t very durable. It’ll become a huge mess because everyone will have their own storefront, games will disappear from existence, publishers can add and remove whatever and you won’t be able to play a certain game when you actually want to. This already happens with RE7 Cloud Edition, which has a ‘window’ of playtime. For a hefty price I might add. If gaming’s future is that, and just that, I hope gaming dies. I really do. There’s enough stuff released up until now over the generations to play something ‘new’ every week for the rest of my life. I don’t need them, they need me.

All this doesn’t matter anyway though because this won’t happen, Ubisoft is wrong and besides, I doubt Nintendo and Sony would just say “Hey, let’s just have no business.”

Depends on how low latency over internet can get in next 10 years, but he's probably right - streaming services are the future.

The easier reply is that Ninty won't do it for a long long time at least. As we know Nintendo does it's own thing everytime. And it won't do it until streaming us stable enough. At the very least we'll have many more Nintendo generations to come. Also first the console market needs to go all digital before it goes streaming. Right now the majority of sales are still from physical games. It will take at least 2 gens for the console makers to be comfortable enough to release an all digital platform. But we'll see

Its inevitable. At the point at which it stops becoming cumbersome (10-20years), it'll become the dominant form of consumption. He may be a generation off but you're merely clinging onto tradition if you don't think having the ability to stream any title on any piece of hardware won't be a compelling option for consumers. Also the death of console generations doesn't mean the death of physical hardware.

Well, he knows how to be popular

A bit short sighted. As much as I want to believe it I very much doubt it.

^ This. Subscription models make far more money in the long run than just selling someone a physical copy of a game. Just look at how 3DS Max, and Photoshop have to be rented on a monthly basis. Photoshop alone used to cost just $500, for the disks. But now you have to pay for a subscription for $10 a month. After five years you've paid way more from the subscription, than you did for a physical copy of Photoshop. 

But they can't implement a subscription service to individual games without killing off those pesky physical disks first. 

So just imagine having to pay $10 to $20 a month to play your favorite $60 AAA title. Oh look! They just increased the price by a lot and there's not a damned thing you can do about it, because everything is digital now!

Doesn't bring streaming services not just a higher latency, but also a worse image quality? The picture has to be compressed as far as I know due to the very low bandwidth that's called the internet.

I tried to stream a game via valve's dedicated app over my local network (1Gbit/s). It was from my PC to the TV. Resolution was in 4k. But the result was more than bad, honestly. I just can't accept this to be the future of gaming. Especially if you compare the amount of raw data that is transferred from the console directly to the TV via HDMI. (HDMI 1.4 is about 8.16 Gbits/s.) For cloud services, you have to bring that number down. … No streaming for me. Thank you.

I think this may be the case. Whether the Switch to cloud gaming is ready by then, or alternatively a more incremental upgrade route becomes permanent, "generations" are ending.