Wrong thread.

Leave but the goth women get to stay.

I don't think, long term, he is wrong. I can see a future where new games arent for sale but streaming only. Probably 15 to 20 years out.

Not quite the same thing, but Nintendo has their classics behind a subscription pay wall.  It starts simple and overtime moves to this kind of setup.  

This is not gonna happen. Video Games are not so popular as TV Series and Movies.
Netflix HBO and Disney have 600 millions subscribers. Good Luck to get those numbers for Home Video Gaming.

Steam and Epic have 200 million monthly users.  Not sure if you add Sony and Nintendo..  there are a lot of gamers out there.

So, streaming failing again confirmed!

Also, streaming incurs a latency which would be very bad for any action game where reaction time or pixel-perfect accuracy are necessary. Something like Civ would be fine, Hollow knight however not.

Translation: In the future people will watch Netflix on their $50 PlayStations.

Why would game developers take on the cost of server farms?
or turn to others to "only" have their games streamed ?

Why is that the future? what is the gain for them?

The game developers/publishers don't stand to gain anything doing things this way.
The only way it even makes sense for service providers, is if they can make more, hosting than selling hardware atm.
So the only way this pays off, is if "renting" your games to be played via stream, long term costs more than buying hardware does.

So while, it might be cheaper for the consumer, day1.... overtime it will likely screw them over (compared to the current system). 

"Not quite the same thing, but Nintendo has their classics behind a subscription pay wall.  It starts simple and overtime moves to this kind of setup. "

Which are not streamed over the internet.
You just pay to access them, month by month.

This is just nintendo not being happy with 1 buy and keep forever....  so they will sell you the games again and again on each new system, or make you pay to even access them, month by month.  That's just greedy business practices, it has nothing to do with game streaming.

It will replace a lot of hardware in the long run, but probably not all - unlike video streaming, there are much more requirements for it, so I can't see streaming domination, but coexisting

Yeah, FPS, Racing, Souls like, Arcade shooters, Beat em ups / fighting games, VR will all be unplayable streaming. While story driven games lose their biggest draw, pixel perfect visuals. And goodluck dodging Lynels on streaming.

It's not just the latency, it's the variable latency that makes it terrible. People have dealt with high latency TVs during the PS3/360/Wii generation, yet that latency was constant, predictable, you can adjust to it. So until the internet becomes stable enough to 'buffer' to a constant 100ms or less latency without hickups it will stay inferior.

Anyway if consoles hit $1000, subscriptions will still be more over time. Gamepass Ultimate is already $360 a year...

You should check it out at least, if you haven't. Around last summer I was curious to check GeForce NOW, since I haven't in ages, so installed and tried Free and had no problem to play Ghost Runner on it, which is quite twitch based. So, unlike how game streaming services used to be, reserved almost exclusively for slower paced/turn-based games, this is quite able to handle fast action.

This is all before GeForce NOW came into "shit, this actually works" spotlight, so not sure if Free is as good as it used to be, but I know Ultimate is.

I can see its main purpose as in "I want to play latest AAA game in all its glory" and pay a month of Ultimate just for that, while playing all other, less demanding games on local hardware.