I agree with all points. Microsoft could still make Xbox consoles because right now they are basically (cheaper) gaming focused PCs. And since Nintendo loves gimmicks and new concepts, they could also continue making dedicated systems. But Sony... I can't see why they would continue; they basically make weaker hardware with an OS radically different from the ones used on PC/Mac. Since they prioritize graphics and story so much on most of their games, I think they would benefit A LOT from making games to PC as they would look better than never and reach a bigger market. But anyway, they will probably do that next gen or the gen after at the latest (via a subscription service, they are kinda testing it with PS Now, I imagine a 100% online store where you could download or stream games on PC).

RavenXtra , you're unfair mod.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=227765

Indeed. Having powerful cards at the devs dispose would led to incredible graphics.

I know you're trying to change the definition of it, but you paid for the right to use their game, not own it.

All you are trading is the plastic. You do not own the code, you paid to use it.

Rockstar games EULA: 

"LICENSE. Subject to this Agreement and its terms and conditions, Licensor hereby grants you the nonexclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to use one copy of the Software for your personal non-commercial use for gameplay on a single computer or gaming unit, unless otherwise specified in the Software documentation."

Notice the word "limited", not "forever", as well as just the license usage, not owning it all.

While many of Sony's IP would be awesome on PC (assuming they'd actually still make games if they didn't have an ecosystem to sell), i can't say i'm on board with the idea that removing Sony from the console race would be an "excellent for gamers". 2006, 2012, and 2013 made it pretty clear what happens when Sony, Nintendo, or MS think they're in a strong enough position to ignore the desires of the market.

Sony are a very important source of competition. The strength of the PlayStation brand in the home console space forces Nintendo and MS to be better than they'd otherwise be, and the efforts of Nintendo and MS are important to ensure PlayStation's brand strength doesn't lead to a console monopoly. At the end of the chain, a healthy console market forces companies like nVidea and Steam to push the advantages of PC gaming further than they would otherwise bother with. 

All in all, i think we have a pretty healthy balance of power in the gaming market, and i don't think there's a strong need for a dramatic shift right now.

I don't need a reply. 

You are trading plastic that contains everything you need to play the game on a compatible system. No matter what happens you can put that disc in a ps4 and play it.

I'm really confused that you're arguing about "owning" a game. Whatever definition or term you want to give it doesn't negate the benefit of having a physical copy that you (substitute desired word here)

The entire argument is redundant because you're not discrediting any of the actual benefits.

The entire argument isn't because you don't flipping own the game, you paid the right to sue it. The company owns the code, the system etc. You just paid to use the damn things. 

Also really, your own arguments against Yuri haven't exactly been holding insurmountable water. 

It hurts to read this thread... I'm sorry!