Just like uplay replaced steam, nah...

If change in gaming happens, it will be only if steam does something revolutionary and good.

And how does that work? You "rent" the equipment on which your game runs, then streams to you, at an exorbitant fee?
No thanks, I'll stick to at least running games on my own computer.

I didn't know Ubisoft made consoles.

Why people even give this attention is beyond me. Back in 1990 they also thought we would have flying cars by now.

End of consoles.

Consoles held back gaming for years now, they had to end sooner or later. Hopefully, we'll see one more generation and it'll die in peace. Then we can start the real gaming.

With consoles, yeah, I think so. I have played all the ps3 exclusives with PlayStation now. It Just works.

For PC, I don't think so. I miss modding too much.

Wasn't it also Ubisoft CEO who said PC gaming is dead a decade or half ago?

The answer is right here and here.

console gaming is built around the concept of compromise and acceptance. they happily accept low framerates (not just that, but theyve manage to convince themselves that low framerates = more cinematic AND that 30 fps is all the eye can see anyway, lol), they tolerate low texture quality, low resolution, paying a premium for access to online gaming, so of course they'll be happy to accept lag AND degraded graphics quality (that WILL happen when you stream content).. its amusing, in a way. OH and high prices. console gamers are fine with high prices in games too...

just wait until isps start throttling game streaming unless you pay for their premium service...

Next Xbox will already have 2 models, a real console and a dumb one that can only stream games. Maybe MS will release a Windows 10 G-mode which only allows streaming games next. But good luck trying to force 30FPS games first on PC people to prepare them for the console experience.

It's an intriguing concept. I'm interested in seeing how it performs and is implemented.

no way i'll ever go for this in the next decade..
Internet here in australia is no where near fast enough and costs too much for streaming games to be viable

It is the future some of the companies are trying really hard to work towards, yes. Nvidia is demoing their solution they plan to sell to others, Sony already dabbled in it as well. Essentially, they are tying to turn entire gaming into pay-per-view only here it is pay-per-hour or buy the Netflix-like monthly subscription.
It has some actual advantages to the customer, if it is Netflix style, but right now it seems to be moving towards the MMO model, where you pay for the game, then pay each month for the privilege of using it. Now that, CEOs all over the world would really love.

Naturally, there is something nasty thing called reality that stands in its way. Like, you can squeeze out a of lot of money from NA and maybe half of Europe this way, South Korea is already broken in to use this model, but then what? That is a couple ten million of a nine-digit user base. Internet infrastructure is nowhere near to support it and 5G may promise the moon and the stars, in reality we are nowhere near the original promises of the 4G telecom systems half a decade after their consumer-level implementation.

This also reminds me like when they said VR will be the norm by the end of next year or so. They just forgot that they would need to make some actual games for it and not just some walking simulators and stationary shooting galleries. So far the only actual AAA-level fleshed-out game with some meaningful play time on VR I know of is Resident Evil 7. Hardly a revolution after nearly two years of being on the market. And the next game in the franchise after it already dropped the VR gimmick.

I think it's only a matter of time. It might or might not be after the next gen of consoles, but I certainly think it's reasonable that 10 years from now streaming will be the common method of playing games. Won't mean there won't be local games on PC or mobile, but it's entirely possible that consoles, in the sense of devices running AAA games locally, will die. These things usually take more time than some people predict (and less time than those 'it will never catch' people predict), but it seems like a reasonable prediction.

I would rather say that there will be no Ubisoft after next generation xD

View attached image.

Yes.

pc master race

I can see console developers going for this. Obvious cash flow advantages aside, the console ''wars'' have been expensive and harsh, even devastating at times for certain companies, so not having to develop a new killer console to compete with the others and that sells to the masses, but instead stream the exclusive games in their libraries to the users that want to play them must feel like a dream come true.
My question is; Stream over what? Directly to the TV, via existing computers, via boxed solutions, or something else?

I see this can be a financially tough strain on many of today's console users (of course dependant on requirements and billing methods),
I don't think parents to young kids will want to pick up hefty monthly bills;
I don't think most adolescents will want to either, at least not for any prolonged period of time unless developers create a lot more content for their channels than what they have today;
Faced with monthly sub costs, I would expect (but of course I might well be wrong here) that a lot of the console players would simply do the switch to PC gaming instead, to keep a payment method well known to them and costs down.

And for those who already play almost exclusively on PC, this might be (again dependant on details) a good thing. To me, there's only a handful of games on consoles that I really want to play, that I really wish were available on PC, but aren't. I personally will never buy two-three different systems just to play one game or two on each, then never use them again, just too expensive and wasteful. But paying for a months worth of streaming to test a title or two I'm interested in? Sounds lot more like something I could do.

But I don't believe this will come anytime soon, because of player base divisions. Yes they got Koreans to do it, but keep in mind that they are extremely passionate about their Star-craft, it's a national obsession. Then it's relatively easy to do if you don't supply any other means.
But console players are already divided between brands, and many of them already have a foot in the PC gaming world as well, and many of them are casual gamers, etc. Not so easy to take all of them into the fold unless you present a single solution where all is available, which they of course won't. There will be a multitude of stream-provider; Today's console giants, and a lot of new entrepreneurs jumping on the new technology.
And if you want to play you will have to take out a subscription for each and every one of them, and I just don't see that happening in the numbers they will want/need to get it going properly.

and i feel fine

Probably not going to happen just like that. While I see subscription winning in the long term, that doesn't mean it's going to be "streaming", at least not as we know it today. You will probably get to download basic package of the games so it can run, and the levels and textures etc will be send to you on-the-fly as you play and removed after playing in order to make piracy more difficult.

This would be cheaper for the gaming company as it would only require basic cloud storage systems, whereas in the streaming scenario they need to run a lot of full blown instances of the game on their servers.

"Gamers will accept higher latency if it's forced on them"

hahahahaha that joke!!!!!! omfg best joke of the century!!!!!

It won't happen. Not in the next generation, that's for sure.
The fact is though, cloud gaming is gathering steam once again and you'd be a fool to say that improving technology isn't making cloud gaming more viable than it ever has been.

But the issue now comes down to the pricing and users themselves. While the provided service can be almost as good as the real thing, the price people have to pay for it is insane. It's cheaper to buy your own hardware, since it'll take around a year to make buying your own, same hardware just as worth it.

The second problem is the user. The internet speeds required aren't high enough for many to run the service at its prime quality. Even if they meet their minimum requirements, it won't be a high quality ride. Most people want 1080p and a 5Mbps connection won't be enough for it.

Cloud gaming is a technology way ahead of its time. Some people swear up and down that it's not a good service, it'll lead nowhere. I think they will be wrong. Just like those types of people have been almost every time before. People saying "I want to own the hardware myself" are the same people that used to say "I want to own all these albums physically", "I want to won all of these games physically", "It's better when I have the Blu-Ray and when I don't stream it", "I'd rather get the pictures developed than have it on some electronic device".
History shows that those people conform. They heavily dislike change, but when it comes, they'll see the benefits, back down a bit and usually recognize the convenience, price and service to be as good or even better than before.

I think cloud gaming will reach that point.

But it won't be now or even in the very near future. But those that are skeptical about this, should look to digital cameras, phone cameras, Spotify, Apple Music, Netflix, Hulu, GoG, Steam, Origin, UPlay, Amazon Prime, Dropbox, Google Drive, iCloud and so on.

Another marketing spam.

I already use cloudgaming via PS now and its pretty great, frankly

Cloud gaming....yes if we found a new energy resource ;)
Unless that,.we will have trouble if we combine with the increase of streaming.