Topic: The Next Console Generation Will Be The Last...... Except For Nintendo

[Adrock]

Ubisoft’s Yves Guillemot Says The Next Console Generation Will Be The Last

I saw this article last night then saw The Perm’s post, but I thought it deserved its own thread instead of being tucked into the Switch Port Begging thread.

Basically, Guillemot believes we’re headed into a streaming only future after the next generation of consoles. Despite being the CEO of a major publisher, it’s too early for him to know any concrete plans. Guillemot may be basing this on moves and statements Sony and Microsoft have made.

PlayStation CEO, John Kodera, recently said PS4 is “entering the end of its lifecycle” and the next generation of PlayStation is three years away. To me, three years is still a long time. It would put the end of next generation around 2029-2030. Kodera also said, “We need to depart from the traditional way of looking at the console cycle. We’re no longer in a time when you can think just about the console or just about the network like they’re two different things.” Kodera said this around the same time Sony CEO, Kenichiro Yoshida, implied that content, software, services, and subscriptions are a path forward for the company. Hmm.

And Microsoft? It hasn’t been acting like a company that wants to focus on hardware anymore. Microsoft no longer releases Xbox One sales numbers (probably because PS4 is trouncing it), said Xbox One X is “not for everyone,” allows Xbox games to stream to a PC, and introduced Xbox Play Anywhere, an Xbox One/PC crossbuy program. Microsoft supports Xbox One because it’s already out and bailing on the console now would interfere with what it wants to do in the future: transition Xbox into a software-based platform. This isn’t an original idea. People have been talking about it for years.

Nintendo has put itself in a position to not give up hardware even if merging its console and handheld into one device might suggest it will eventually downsize to no hardware. It wants one Switch per person, not household. The path to getting there is dropping the cost of entry. While I personally prefer to use Switch as a home console, lurking through ResetEra and comment sections suggests the opposite for other people. I often read comments like “I hope [Game X] is released on Switch so I can play it on the go.” Nintendo finally released hardware that people can hope a game releases on the platform without it sounding crazy.

For me, Switch is almost good enough to be “good enough.” It gets a ton of indie games and some current generation games thanks to scaling. “Good enough” is when we don’t question whether a game will come to a platform; it will abeit with worse graphics except we won’t care. In 2004, Satoru Iwata famously said technical specs don’t matter. Whenever Nintendo releases the successor to Switch, those words may finally hold some weight for developers. Better specs will yield diminishing returns. What people will want is convenience.

If Sony is hinting at eventually moving forward as a services and content provider and Microsoft is practically already doing that, Nintendo may be the last hardware manufacturer which would be weird because after Sega, a lot of people thought Nintendo would be the next to withdraw. No matter how good streaming gets in 10 to 12 years, will it ever be consistent enough to move away from the current model? I think there will always be a niche of people who want dedicated gaming hardware because it’s easy, tangible, and reliable. And that’s where the successors of Switch fit in.

TLDR:
1. Microsoft will never release a true successor to Xbox One meant to compete with Sony and Nintendo.
2. Sony will release a successor because PlayStation is too popular not to. However, it wants to transition out of hardware because even back in 1999, Sony’s former CEO, Nobuyuki Idei, warned that “The hardware business is peanuts.”
3. Nintendo will never stop releasing dedicated gaming hardware because it’s happy with its niche, and Switch is the company’s path to being successful there.

[ShyGuy]

I can see Microsoft leaving, maybe making a surface set top box. Sony will hang on, and Nintendo too. Time for Amazon to jump in!

[Ian Sane]

Microsoft is leaving the console biz.  The Xbox One is irrelevant.  I would consider the Wii U more relevant than it, simply because of the exclusives (though they're all being ported to the Switch).  The only reason to own an XB1 over a PS4 is if you're a big Halo or Gears of War nut and those franchises aren't even being made by their original devs anymore.

If streaming is the future then the devs don't even need a hardware standard to go on anymore.  They just need a receiver of sorts.  The cloud server that runs the game can be whatever they want.  I suppose a company like MS can find a market as a supplier of those servers.  Devs aren't going to make their own hardware that often, they'll want to use something standardized.  Though indy devs won't be able to use a streaming model as they won't have the finances to maintain servers.  The concept makes sense for Ubisoft but not small companies, unless they can "rent" server space on a bigger company's server.

Nintendo has a reason to stick with dedicated hardware simply because this streaming idea will not fly with a portable system.  You couldn't really rely on a stable internet connection on the go like that.  Someday in the future, sure, but not in the next few years.

Though if cloud gaming became the way to do it, Nintendo can always join with their own servers at any time.  There wouldn't need to be any proprietary system.  If you had an electronic device you could run the games.  I could see someone like Nintendo trying to make a closed system but I think once an open system was established you couldn't get away with it.  All the user should need is a controller, a screen, speakers and an internet connection.  Though I could see Nintendo then pushing wacky controllers again so that people have to buy THEIR controller to play their games.

I don't want cloud gaming to be the future since that gives up any sort of consumer ownership... but I'm an old fart in the grand scheme of things.  Millennials decide this, not me, and they don't have the same concerns as me.

[Luigi Dude]

Pretty much everyone behind the Xbox brand has left Microsoft by now.  Especially after Xbox One blew up in their face early on, I doubt the company wants to go through another messy hardware development.  The focus on cross-play Microsoft has been pushing makes it pretty clear to me they're planning on transitioning out of the current hardware model.

[nickmitch]

It makes the most sense for MS to be on the forefront of this.  They're in a great position to transition over to that sort of model.  Don't Surface tablets already play Xbox games? and connect to XB1 controllers?  They pitch the Xbox as something that works across devices and cloud computing just increases the number of devices.  They only thing they might think to add is an "Xbox Mini" that streams the games to a TV, something that's in a small package for people who still want something closer to a traditional gaming setup.

[pokepal148]

I feel like the only thing that kept Microsoft in the console business is that the 360 was successful enough to buy them a fair bit of relevance from the younger crowd. With that tarnished away I don't see them sticking around. I don't think they've ever made enough money off of the Xbox brand to make back what they've invested in it.

Right now, at the walmart I work at the Xbone doesn't have a demo kiosk when both the PS4 and Switch have one.

[lolmonade]

The only reason I question whether Microsoft is really done with consoles is because they JUST recently released the Xbox One X.  That's a lot of effort into a box, even if it's an iterative one, for them to then decide to cede what market share/they have. 


Anyone whose watched the console space can tell how each console cycle has different outcomes for different reasons.  I just have a hard time seeing any of these three companies letting anyone else be the gatekeeper for their content digitally, and I still don't see that the larger market would be interested in figuring out how to set-up a PC to stream to their TV or what other alternative there'd be to a dedicated box under your TV.

[BranDonk Kong]

It came out 5 years ago...it's not *that* recent.

[Adrock]

Nintendo has a reason to stick with dedicated hardware simply because this streaming idea will not fly with a portable system.  You couldn't really rely on a stable internet connection on the go like that.  Someday in the future, sure, but not in the next few years.

Yep. And despite the fact that Nintendo doesn't have a clear online strategy, people seem fine with this because Switch keeps selling. Portability seems to be driving those sales. Even in a streaming future, that's the area Nintendo can operate. With Microsoft's current lack of interest in hardware and Sony's apparent desire to stay ahead of the curve and abandon traditional consoles before consumers do, Nintendo finds itself in the unique position of potentially being the last and only hardware manufacturer.

I don't want cloud gaming to be the future since that gives up any sort of consumer ownership... but I'm an old fart in the grand scheme of things.  Millennials decide this, not me, and they don't have the same concerns as me.

I'm right there with you.

The only reason I question whether Microsoft is really done with consoles is because they JUST recently released the Xbox One X.  That's a lot of effort into a box, even if it's an iterative one, for them to then decide to cede what market share/they have.

Xbox One X still fits in with Microsoft's original messaging with Xbox One as an all-in-one media center (TV, sports etc). Unlike PS4 Pro, it even plays UHD Blu Ray discs. Additionally, Xbox One X helps bridge the gap with more capable PCs for Xbox Play Anywhere. I feel like Microsoft is leaning into the concept of Xbox as a platform rather than a console with Xbox One X being part of that strategy. Your guess is as good as mine.

I just have a hard time seeing any of these three companies letting anyone else be the gatekeeper for their content digitally, and I still don't see that the larger market would be interested in figuring out how to set-up a PC to stream to their TV or what other alternative there'd be to a dedicated box under your TV.

Similar to how there are what, 37 different TV/movie streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, HBO Go etc, we may see a similar collision course in the gaming space. If that comes to pass, someone is going to get pushed out. How much are these services going to cost?

I don't believe people will have much trouble setting up a gaming streaming service. By the time streaming is good enough for Sony, Microsoft, or another company even attempts this, the target audience will have grown up always having the Internet. Ultimately, I think it will depend on whether people accept it. There was massive pushback when Microsoft introduced Xbox One with all that DRM nonsense. If that criticism remains as strong in the future, there will always be a place for dedicated gaming hardware. Maybe Microsoft bails with Sony not far behind. I believe Nintendo hangs on for as long as it can.

[ThePerm]

I think a bombshell for Sony might be consoles as we know it might be done. It might be confusing and shocking to gamers, but it makes total business sense.

AMD will be in Charge of consoles and Xbox and Playstation will be Stores inside of a console/PCs. Nintendo will of course do their own thing.

I tend to look at things from a "What's going on in that box/bubble?"

AMD makes both the CPU and GPU of both PS4 and Xbox One. They used to make Nintendo's but Nintendo was given the opportunity to jump ship. If you buy a PS4 or Xbox One you're pretty much buying an "AMD Box"

Nintendo must have some reason to Switch companies. They had years with AMD and I think that it was odd for them to go a different route. We should be clear though. Nvidia was more advanced with mobile SOC chips with its Tegra line. Nintendo could have switched for that reason. They could have switch however if: AMD put their dick on the table.

Sony and Microsoft are reliant on AMD. They could go to IBM or some new Chinese manufacturer or they could play ball with AMD. Sony could make their product in-house but this would probably cost them 2 billion dollars in R&D. I'm not sure of their current relationships with nVidia or how Nintendo's relationship with nVidia might affect Sony and Microsofts. There have been indications of burned bridges between nVidia and the big 2.

A reductive way to eliminate 2 consoles with the same architecture is to just have one console. Having 2 VCRs with different labels and different color boxes is the main difference. The hardware is marginally different. Enough to satisfy contracts. It is an artifice. Sony particularly might not like that, but they might not have a choice in the short term. They may not even have a choice in the long term either. I recall 3dfx being the dominant graphics company and just being -poof- gone over night. Sony is in a good position though now. They have 4 generations of Software. Many of which were developed by them and are classic. Microsoft also is in a good position to do this. Xbox is 3 generations, but they also have Classic PC stuff.

Sony actually has a service called PSNOW that lets you play Playstation games on the PC. You can play PS2, PSP and Playsation games, but it hasn't expanded to more. But it could.

Microsoft has been Platform agnostic for a while. Minecraft is on every system. "Xbox Exclusives" tend to be playable on the PC.

Discs as a format are dying. Buying games at retail is dying

Also a note. Consoles are all HD now. Back in the day what really separated a console from a PC was that a PC had a superVGA moniter and a keyboard and mouse, and a console had controllers and was NTSC or Pal. You could run office software or unsigned software on the PC and you could upgrade it every few months like an insane person. The difference between a console and a PC are much slimmer now. It's only input and software for the most part. The most consolesque system now is Switch.

Factor in Micro-consoles, Android, Apple, Steam, Possible Chinese brand Consoles.

I see consoles dying. Well in the Exclusive sense. I see console becoming generic. But not necessarily this upcoming generation. Maybe AMD isn't going to play this political game. It is coming eventually though. All of these companies will need to adapt to survive in the future games business.

I don't see cloud gaming taking off for a long time though. We need reliable internet in the United States for that. Local storage still seems to be the way to go.

[Shaymin]

It came out 5 years ago...it's not *that* recent.

I think he's talking about the One X.
As a platform, the One is normally at the point where traditionally Microsoft likes to see domination (3rd iteration, see IE, Windows itself), but I don't see the current leadership thinking the same way.

[MagicCow64]

Isn't the story with Nvidia and Switch that Nvidia had something of a botched product with the Tegra and offered Nintendo a deal they couldn't refuse to soak up the product line? Like I think there was speculation that it might have been near free so as to lock Nintendo into a multi-gen architecture and bail Nvidia out of a tight spot.

But anyway, I agree that it's basically pointless to have two identical AMD boxes, and that Microsoft doesn't really have any business in the console space anymore, but I also think they'll keep sticking it out indefinitely. They are currently rumored to be re-investing in game production after a rocky gen, which isn't what I would expect if they were fading out of dedicated hardware after the Xbone sunsets. Sunk cost fallacy? Corporate hubris? Comparative marginality to healthy enterprise sectors? Who knows, but I fully expect an XBOSS1080, perhaps leaning into the X dick-measuring brand.

In general, I don't think the internet infrastructure in the States will be anywhere near where it needs to be in any near-to-mid future to support streaming as a default. And depending on geography it might never be viable due to fundamental limitations of physics. I'm okay with this!

[ThePerm]

Well the Switch is basically the same thing as the nVidia shield. It's rebranded to some extant, but Nintendo has a ton of user interface patents.

A graphics card company pretty much needs the backing of a major games company to make their systems sell. Nintendo and nVidia are talking like it's a romance. AMD might want to eliminate having so much divided R&D. They could possibly still call the generic system the respective name, much like they do now, though you could possibly have access to both stores in the future. The hardware doesn't really need to be different. They could go with radically different cosmetic box designs. I like switching up controllers and stuff. The NES Classic and Super Nintendo Classic are the same thing with different shells.

[MagicCow64]

I think part of the issue with the hardware agnostic future is the corporate game theory behind such a scenario. Sure, it might ultimately be better if everyone dropped their proprietary hardware stances, but why would three corps in both present and historically tense competition trust each other to cooperate like that? In the same way that we'd all probably be better off if we didn't have to maintain nuclear weapon stockpiles, it could be better for these companies to finally meld with general computing paradigms. (And we've got the current example where Apple's cash cow hardware business is starting to wane.) But it's hard to imagine there being an advantage to any of the platform holders stepping back and inviting the others to join. And again, a lot of this would depend on somewhat fanciful views of how internet technology will shake out in an increasingly unregulated environment in the states.

I feel like the transition away from cable is perhaps an useful point of comparison. The initial dream was that you could cut the cord and enjoy a non-prescriptive suite of television/film programming at a fraction of the cost. Netflix was kind of that for a little bit! But the corporate priorities manifested, and now there are dozens of segregated streaming services that would add up to cable again. Ultimately there's an on-demand convenience advantage and a greater a la carte flexibility, but the stakeholders are stubbornly insisting on their piece, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. The primary difference compared to video games is that this is passive video entertainment that can be streamed on any screen, with far fewer technical concerns. When you involve actual significant processing power to get the content to work, it's even more fraught and riddled with patents. Whereas in the music space you can effectively access a massive amount of all recorded songs for free, legally. You don't need a screen or significant bandwidth compared to video content. And it is the cheapest and most utopian implementation of "cloud" content.

[ThePerm]

It's hard to say when it will happen. It will happen though. Sony and Microsoft might hold onto the console dream, while Nintendo has effectively abandoned it, but if they do hold onto it there will be some competitors, possibly some companies that don't exist or we've never heard of that will knock them off their thrones. Or possibly existing large companies that move in on their space. There were always rumors of Apple moving in, or Samsung, or google, or Amazon buying the Xbox division. The companies want their honey jar, but they're going to be swarmed by bees if they don't take their hand out and move onto a different one.

I wonder about Micro-consoles. Ouya may have been an unimpressive failure to some. But I made game demos for the system, and I think it was on the right track. I think the main thing it needed was more USB ports. That sounds like a small thing, but 2 more ports and you could do a whole ton more with the system. Maybe some more internal storage.
The Raspberry Pi has a lot going for it. I wonder how future more powerful versions are going to fair.  Even the current version is interesting. I think I'll install android on it and see how that goes. The right hobby micro-console  could become popular with some of the right steps.

[Adrock]

Microsoft Confirms Xbox ‘Scarlet’ And New Game Streaming Service

Phil Spencer said that the company’s cloud engineers are working to bring console-quality games streaming to any device. Microsoft already allows in-home game streaming with its Xbox console and the Xbox app on the PC and this streaming service is a natural extension of that experience. It’s also not hard to imagine that the streaming service will be linked to Xbox Game Pass too.

It certainly looks like next generation Xbox hardware will be released primarily for the purposes of pushing a game streaming service. Microsoft has never made money on Xbox hardware so I’d imagine it would love nothing more than to have the ability to eventually sell $50 streaming boxes (maybe with a controller) or convincing TV OEMs to include Xbox streaming software directly into Smart TVs specifically for people who don’t want to be fussed with messing around with a PCs. That isn’t a bad idea because Sony and Nintendo sure as hell won’t be keen to help Microsoft get Netflix-like head start on the games streaming pie.

At the same time, Microsoft has been cozying up to Nintendo lately. Maybe it’s playing the long-con in an attempt to sweet talk Nintendo into either allowing Xbox streaming on a Switch successor or just putting Nintendo games on the Xbox streaming service. Both? Doubt that works, but in the meantime, maybe we get Rare games on a Nintendo 64 Classic Edition and/or Banjo-Kazooie in Super Smash Bros. A girl can dream.

Additionally, it’s possible the larger publishers like EA and Activision try to launch their own streaming service or a bunch of them band together against Sony and Microsoft with a shared service like Hulu before it turns into a clusterfuck in which one of the partners tries to get a larger piece of the pie. Who’s going to be Disney/Comcast in this comparison?

EDIT: Here’s a link to Eurogamer’s A chat with Phil Spencer about next gen Xbox consoles.

[Mop it up]

When I saw this title, I thought there would be people arguing about whether or not the Switch is 8th gen or 9th gen. I'm glad to see there isn't!

Myself, it's too early for me to start thinking about the next batch of systems. I don't even like thinking about the current systems.

[segagamersteph]

I don't think the internet infrastructure is as big a hurdle as some claim. First, you won't need to download the entire game. In a digital store front yeah intrastructure is a hurdle because you need to download 25gb and up files, no everyone can do that easily.
However, a streaming service would be much easier. Think of Netflix and Blu Ray. an HD movie on BRD is 35 plus GB yet Netflix streaming works well. You could get by with download or preloading the first level and the game code, or the engine it runs on, then all you have to stream, gradually, is the different levels.

It's not ideal but it will happen. We all know it's coming. No I am not advocating for it but I just accept it's going to happen sooner or later.

There will be some games that suffer but the market has proven that despite inroads for digital downloads there are companies willing to invest in physical for the niche market. So, what's to stop a streaming service from existing that also allows downloads or limited physical for those who aren't ready to make the switch? I mean, Netflix is a streaming only service yet nothing stops them from also selling some of their content on DVD/Blu Ray, I can see that.
Also, who says all the companies have to unite and play nice? I mean we know the movie studios didn't come together to make 1 super streaming service, they keep splintering into smaller chunks. So who's to say Microsoft, Ubisoft, EA and Sony can't all offer their own platform and make it harder to get all the same games?

I would be okay with this model if it was a subscription service and games came in and out. Sure owning games would be a thing of the past but aside from old timers and OCD collectors, most people have moved past keeping all their games for life. We've gotten used to rebuying our movies and video games by now there's no turning back.
Not to mention, technically speaking, TV and radio have always been a streaming platform that delivers entertainment to a receiver box. The hardware and infrastructure is in place, I just think some people are holding onto the old way of thinking and companies aren't interested in preserving the old timers, they want the kids and the kids are growing up in a world without physical boarders.

[MagicCow64]

.

[segagamersteph]

I guess I rambled a little.

[MagicCow64]

Sorry, I deleted a reply that was unnecessarily cranky. Mainly I meant to say that I think the infrastructure concerns are a big deal. Those "UHD" streaming versions of stuff are generally much lower quality than the disc versions (which are kind of languishing in the market anyway), and most people can't really tell. It doesn't really affect the actual function of the movies and shows and only a small percentage of dedicated AV nerds can really parse it.

Game-wise, it's much harder to pipe current-gen graphixx that require near-instant inputs over even a high-speed line, which most people don't have. Even where fiber is available, most people can't or won't pay for it. And there are just inherent latency issues that come into play based on how far you are from those servers doing the actual rendering. Like, if this were a moon shot priority it could probably be done, but I don't see the infrastructure and regulatory environment in the states getting there anytime soon, certainly not soon enough to be the backbone of a cloud ascension for the next generation.

[lolmonade]

Sorry, I deleted a reply that was unnecessarily cranky. Mainly I meant to say that I think the infrastructure concerns are a big deal. Those "UHD" streaming versions of stuff are generally much lower quality than the disc versions (which are kind of languishing in the market anyway), and most people can't really tell. It doesn't really affect the actual function of the movies and shows and only a small percentage of dedicated AV nerds can really parse it.

Agreed, I think if you're in an area with an ISP that provides consistent and reliable internet, that's one thing.  I'm lucky to live in my area as its where the Mediacom is, but I'm still talking about paying $90/month for 100mpbs.  I used to get 500 when I left Raleigh NC, but they even didn't bother bumping their speed until Google announced they were coming with fiber.


The capability to have faster, better internet won't be the gatekeeper, it'll be the pseudo-monopolies for ISPs in the US and a large swath of our rural areas that are constricted to dial-up speeds that'd be the problem.

[segagamersteph]

I think you are over thinking it. You're saying stream the whole game from a server. I am suggesting they download the core game, a small download to the box and stream the rest. Like you download the game engine and the first level and the rest streams to the console, it works half way between downloading the entire game and streaming the entire product. Not a perfect system but workable until the lines catch up.
Also, I think it's different with games than movies. Movies are large chunks of data that have to be streamed all at once, entire frames encoded with audio. A video game is mostly code, it does require some input from the user and no it won't work for every type of game which is why it will take a couple more generations to get fully there.

By the time it gets figured out the infrastructure issues will mostly not be an issue. I don't live in an area with high speed internet, I think I mentioned that before I am stuck on Hughesnet but I can stream Netflix just fine and I don't think video games will be that worse. Lag is an issue but obviously we're not here yet but we sure as hell are a lot close than we were ten years ago and in 5 years time we'll be even closer.

4G speeds are easily fast enough and even if you can't get fiber optic you won't need speeds that fast, you can easily do this with 4G wireless speeds and make it workable, not ideal but doable. Obviously game quality takes a hit but we took that hit to video quality with movies anyways, which you alluded to, and nobody seems to care.
There will still be a physical option for those who want that, it won't be an all streaming system, not yet, not for another 10 years. Which is what these two companies are pushing for, if the two largest players in the gaming industry are saying it will happen, I strongly believe it's going to happen.

BTW, I, agree it's not ideal and I am not advocating for an all streaming future just recognizing it is coming and we're now closer than ever. The same old tired argument speed isn't fast enough yet is out dated, how fast does it need to be to stream games? I think it can be done with 4G speeds, which is what 5meg? Who doesn't have that? I live in a small town in the dessert in the mountains middle of no where and I have faster than that. It won't be 4K gaming but that's not the point. It will be better for those with faster speeds but doable for the minimum. Playable and ideal are too different things. You're thinking lag free HD 60FPS, I am saying the market won't care the market will accept lag, slower speeds, lower frame rates, etc. for the convenience.

[Ian Sane]

I think you are over thinking it. You're saying stream the whole game from a server. I am suggesting they download the core game, a small download to the box and stream the rest. Like you download the game engine and the first level and the rest streams to the console, it works half way between downloading the entire game and streaming the entire product.

That's still a console though.  It has dedicated hardware that runs the game, even if only part of it.  If Sony and MS were doing that they would still have separate platforms and games would have to be designed to run on both of them.  I think some games do this concept already.

I think what the Ubisoft is mentioning is that the device you play on doesn't run the game at all.  The actual processing of the game is all done on a server and the results are streamed to a receiver that aside from outputting the video/audio and sending the controller input back to the server does nothing else.  In a situation like that Ubisoft doesn't even need to bother working with Sony, MS or Nintendo.  They can create their own servers with whatever specs they like and output it to any device that can act as a receiver, like how Netflix works.  Your "console" is more like a TV and the game is like cable.

[segagamersteph]

Ian, I agree that is what we are expecting for THIS upcoming generation. That will last what 5 years, then they will have the tech to launch a true streaming box.
I am fairly certain a Roku is still processing something. I think it only needs to have bare minimum hardware. I am also not expecting one universal platform, I seriously doubt that will ever happen. MS will have a platform, Steam will have theirs, Sony theirs, EA theirs, etc.

We're half way there now.