Ok, that is fine. We clearly just don't agree on how important ownership is to the general population, which is fine. Time will tell. 

Well according to Microsoft, they've already abandoned console generations, the term itself is loosely defined. I think we'll still be getting new hardware released for some time, but maybe we won't see a PS6, just PS5 Pro Ultras until the physical market is done. So Ubisoft might be right, maybe nobody will be talking about console generations in 2028, even if we do see new hardware releasing.

I get about 68mb down with a ping of about 15ms and PS Now works really well for me. No lag but image quality is a bit poor, only 720p and some pretty nasty macroblocking on certain titles (all titles suffer a bit, PS4 games seem to fare better) so I think the tech is almost ready. I think in 10 years (I'm assuming that's roughly the timeframe Ubisoft is talking) streaming could be a real competitor to physical consoles but I find it hard to believe the market will be ready to completely switch over. I think in a decade we will be in a similar position, with streaming still being an alternative but a more readily available one to more people. We might also be seeing a push for cloud exclusive games that take advantage of hardware not available to consumers though.

We can make our own plastic from renewable sources. Industrial crops are starting to become a massive thing. :)

It will be 1-2ms from the tower/node. But the laws of Physics does come into play... When you have a server thousands of kilometers/miles away, then a heap of routing in between, that's all added latency. And there is nothing we can do about it... Except to try and hide it through various means, but that will only take you so far.

15ms is still high. Nor is that a representation of what everyone will achieve.

Are we talking indefinitely here?, or just one more century or two.

Millions of gamers aren't even satisfied with 60Hz moniters (let alone 30Hz legacy console gameplay) because they want to play in 144Hz to be able to compete in multiplayer.

You can never provide more than 60 Hz in streaming because of technical barriers. Therefore most gamers will wanna have the hardware in their home, not in the cloud.

Look at what happened to the On-Live game-streaming service, it flopped and cost hundreds of millions to the developer. And not many gamers choose to stream their games through the Sony cloud serivce. Plus Microsoft made an enormous deal out of gaming in the cloud service back in 2014 and yet their poster-boy for that tech, the game Crackdown 3, isn't even ready to be released in 2018. And rumour says that the procedural destrucion of Crackdown 3 has been dialed back because online streaming won't be fast enuff to handle it even in 2019.

They seem to really froth at the mouth at the thought of a netflix style subscribtion service of their own, with no added platform fees. What they fail to realize....somehow is that EVERY major publisher just can't wait to lock their consumers into such a subscribtion and the mounting costs will make it impossible for most people to pay for all of them.
So people will choose one or two (or just give up on AAA publishers) and they will loose a massive amount of consumers overall.

The appeal of a subcribtion service is to have everything available. The music industry has got that largely right so far, no amount of tidal exclusive Jay-Z and Beyonce albums will make people switch from their Apple Music or Spotify subscribtions because they largely have everything available. If now EMI, Columbia and Sony all decided to have their own service, the streaming industry wouldn't work anymore. That Is exactly what happening in the tv industry right now, everyone is chasing their own dedicated service, driving up costs and making the whole model unattractive.

For however long we can grow plants.

A lot of people assume that subscription plans = bad for consumers. It is entirely true that could be the case. At the same time, it could go the other way. There are a lot of costs that a subscription plan eliminates:

The cost of producing the physical media
The cost of the retailer (Walmart, Best Buy, etc) getting their cut
The cost of used game retailers making money buying/selling used games
The cost of lost sales due to piracy

So potentially the video game developers can make a lot more money, while also passing along some of the above savings to the consumer. It is then the retailers who really lose. I am not saying this is how it will go, but this is how it could go. Again, it absolutely could go the other way and be a negative, but it might not. Most people view Netflix as a good deal and as being pro-consumer.

So EA announced their streaming service, if I am correct 15 bucks a month or 100bucks a year and you have access to the vault + all new ea games. Only on PC but it could work.

Bleh. No thanks. I hate the games as service model that they keep trying to push.

I wouldn't mind if Ubisoft said that this was the last console generation for them, LOL.