Quantcast
Opinion: The Future Will Not About Hardware Platform (PC/COnsole/handled/Mobile ) but Ecosystem (service/software)

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Opinion: The Future Will Not About Hardware Platform (PC/COnsole/handled/Mobile ) but Ecosystem (service/software)

Tagged games:

What do you think

I am still not onboard with this future 13 50.00%
 
Am I dreaming 2 7.69%
 
Are we ended up on weird reality 0 0.00%
 
I don't know how to accept this reality 3 11.54%
 
I don't want to change, i... 2 7.69%
 
I will quit gaming 6 23.08%
 
Total:26
Leynos said:
HollyGamer said:

Or you can still play modern games without collecting the physical media. It's cheaper and the games will still belonging to you. Modern infrastructure will make you able to sell your digital games, share your games and lend your games.  I bet physical will still exist but it will be expensives. 

Not ownership. Digital is a rental.

Not necessarily

Any buy from GOG for instance is certainly yours. You can download the game, copy it on a disc/usb stick/SD card/whatever, give it to a friend, and he'll play it without even needing an internet connection, as the games don't even "phone home" (unless it's an online game, of course). Humble Bundle and itch.io both also support direct downloads for many (non AAA-)titles, the former even through torrent. Those also behave like the GOG games I mentioned earlier.

However on consoles, it's a bit more complicated. Backwards compatibility is coming, but nothing ensures that this will always be the case - or that games are not getting deleted from servers or even the consoles themselves in extreme cases. Possibly also one of the many reasons why Digital distribution took much longer to spread on consoles compared to PC.



Around the Network

Some have been saying this for years. It’s only the logical and natural progression of technology and the market. Nice to see Sony’s now on board.



Not surprising to see such a thread after people got a glimpse of where Sony is heading, but people need to think about why it's happening before they jump to the conclusion that every console manufacturer will go down that path.

1. The first thing that people don't understand or keep forgetting is that gaming has two major points of origin. One point is the arcades which spawned dedicated gaming machines to bring the arcade experience into people's homes; the other point is PC gaming. The major difference between arcade and PC gaming is that the former had to be about games that can be quickly understood and learned because otherwise people would have just moved on to the next cabinet to put their coins into; on the other hand, PC gaming was known for complicated setups and lacking ease of use, both in how to get games to run and how to play them, but that is owed to developers knowing that people are going to be sitting down to get into it.

2. The second thing is that not all console manufacturers are the same. Nintendo is the last remaining company that makes traditional consoles because they are following the spirit of arcade gaming. Sony may have started out that way too, but in hindsight it's clear that that was just about getting a foothold in the console market, because with the PS3 it's already evident that Sony was pursuing PC gaming on consoles all along. Microsoft launched Xbox as a defensive measure, because if PC gaming was going to move to consoles, then at least it should happen on a Microsoft product. (Gaming PCs use Windows as OS, so a part of Windows money has always been from gamers upgrading to new rigs and new Windows iterations.)

3. With Sony and Microsoft consoles becoming more and more like PCs - the Xbox Series X doesn't even try to hide it with its hardware shape anymore - it seems natural that PC gaming is going to return where it belongs. Obviously, Nintendo isn't going to take that path because their idea of console gaming clashes with all the major players in the industry. However, Nintendo's path doesn't clash with the market, so why should Nintendo change. Before Switch, it was said that Nintendo has to do the same as Sony and Microsoft, then Switch was unveiled and immediately doomed because Nintendo did their own thing. Turned out that the more Nintendo goes against what Sony and Microsoft are doing, the more successful Nintendo is. Switch wasn't the first time either, because the Wii and DS told the same story.

4. The biggest factor in gaming profits are subscriptions for both Sony and Microsoft; on the other hand, Nintendo makes most of its money from game sales while being profitable in all other aspects as well. This is a crucial thing to remember because it's about the business motivations of all these companies. For Sony and Microsoft it makes the most sense to include the PC and similar devices to expand the reach of their subscription services because they typically sell console hardware at a loss. On the other hand, Nintendo's core business is profitable in all areas with only the 3DS and Wii U being outliers. The design of Nintendo hardware is also integral to the gaming experience; currently, Switch's portability differentiates Nintendo in a major way from all other options and that's something that will continue going forward as generations pass, so for Nintendo the tradeoff of foregoing exclusivity of their games to sell games to a bigger audience isn't worth it, because that way they'll lose out on profits from other areas as fewer people would buy their hardware.

5. Regarding Microsoft, I don't think anyone doubts that they'll be more profitable without a console, because after almost 20 years in the console business, subscription models are about the only thing they have to show for it. Regarding Sony, what leads them to doing what they are doing is Microsoft's direction. If Sony allowed Microsoft to establish themselves as the leader in subscription services, then Sony's profits would eventually begin to suffer. The major players' assumption that streaming and the like is the future may all be wrong, but nevertheless it's what they believe in and that's why they go where they are going.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

JRPGfan said:
HollyGamer said:

 Every games will be available on every platform through the Cloud on every , PC, console, handled. Digital games also sold slightly more than physical media. This also translate how many people already change their mind and perspective to digitize their library. 

Service like GamePass, PSNow, Steam, Epic Store will be the foundation of the future. 

So far game streaming isnt doing anything better than just haveing hardware in hand.

"you can stream it to mobile"

No you cant! stop this bullsh*t, data caps on mobile phones are tiny.
Useing 7-8 GB in 1hour to game, on a mobile phone isnt viable.

Most people buy small data plans for phones, where they have like 40gb-100gb.
If that means your entire months data usage, can be gone in 5hours (game streaming), its not viable for phones (unless companys magically start giveing us like x1000 data caps, out of the goodness of their own hearts, for the same prices).

*** This is why people buy expensive phones, to game on. Its also why the Nintendo Switch is still viable. Game Streaming just doesnt work atm, with data caps.

I am sorry but their are already a bunch of countries with unlimited data caps for mobile in fact 29 countries of the 41 OECD countries have unlimited data.  






I don't like subscriptions. I don't mind buying multiple consoles but refuse to get multiple content subscriptions. So good luck with that. It's a shame, the expanse is my favorite sci-fi show but it's now exclusive to Amazon prime and I already have Netflix. Not going to cave. Game pass looks good but I already have ps+ for GT Sport, so too bad, don't have time for all that anyway. Also not willing to have a live gold subscription next to a ps+ subscription has played a role in not getting the xbox this gen.



Around the Network
konnichiwa said:
JRPGfan said:

So far game streaming isnt doing anything better than just haveing hardware in hand.

"you can stream it to mobile"

No you cant! stop this bullsh*t, data caps on mobile phones are tiny.
Useing 7-8 GB in 1hour to game, on a mobile phone isnt viable.

Most people buy small data plans for phones, where they have like 40gb-100gb.
If that means your entire months data usage, can be gone in 5hours (game streaming), its not viable for phones (unless companys magically start giveing us like x1000 data caps, out of the goodness of their own hearts, for the same prices).

*** This is why people buy expensive phones, to game on. Its also why the Nintendo Switch is still viable. Game Streaming just doesnt work atm, with data caps.

I am sorry but their are already a bunch of countries with unlimited data caps for mobile in fact 29 countries of the 41 OECD countries have unlimited data.  

At a price! If you're willing to pay ~50€ a month just to be able to stream games on top of what the games cost - and you still end up with a worse experience, just look at Stadia and how that went down.

Also, unlimited data doesn't mean unlimited bandwidth. For a 1080p like experience, you should already have something like 10Mbit/s, for 4k, 50Mbit/s. Most antennas would be overwhelmed if there's more than a couple users who game like that (just measure your internet speed in Metro Manila for instance, you'd be happy if you reach double digits on LTE - and they only play LoL and the like).



As long as Nintendo makes hardware (console, Handheld, or hybrid) they will have exclusive games on it that you cannot legally play anywhere else.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

If this future goes the game pass way I'm fully on board, but if it's the Stadia way I'll think about significantly lowering the amount I game.



xl-klaudkil said:
vivster said:
It would already be that way if 3 certain gamestores wouldn't force you to use very specific outdated hardware.

So no. I doubt we will have the choice centric utopia anytime soon.

Wow people still believe this? 

Owke then.

3 usa gamestores rule over the gaming world.

I'm talking of course about digital gamestores. And there are currently only 3 on this planet who force their customers to buy specific hardware for software that was coded with general purpose development tools.

Yes, not even gamestop is asshole enough to force specific hardware onto their customers.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Cerebralbore101 said:

I'm gonna love that digital-only future where game prices are extortion, I am forced to pay per month for insanely high speed internet, and then pay again for multiple monthly "subscriptions". Oh, and everything but Nintendo will be a quarter of a game, with DLC, and MTX thrown in, because consumers can no longer just sell their used physical copy at a game store if they don't like their game.

PotentHerbs said:
I still think we have a gen or two left of the traditional hardware cycle.

Sony just cut it down to a single gen. Probably five years from now at this rate.

I doubt SIE titles will be day and date releases on PC since Sony is trying to sell hardware. In a recent interview, Jim Ryan stated the importance of having exclusives for the PS5, while foreshadowing PS4 ports to PC. 

With games like Uncharted 4, GoW, and Horizon making it to PS Now, what's the difference if its ported to PC at the end of the gen? Most of these titles will be permanently added to their subscription service by PS5 launch. They aren't exclusive in the "traditional" sense anymore.