Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot: 'Game streaming will replace all gaming platforms'

[Cal Jeffrey]

Forward-looking: Just as people have changed the ways in which they access their data, so are gamers changing the ways in which they access their games. More and more companies are exploring cloud gaming technology. Existing services are improving and new ones are opening. Could this spell the end for dedicated gaming PCs and consoles?

Gaming is a multi-billion dollar per year industry with over 2 billion players worldwide. The business has evolved and expanded with great diversity in platforms. This variety, in turn, has led to even more growth with multiple variations of the same game for the numerous devices available — smartphone, console, PC. Some believe that the industry is set to evolve again as a direct result of this diversity.

Ubisoft co-founder and CEO Yves Guillemot believes that game consoles (and PC-gaming rigs for that matter) are about to go the way of the dinosaur. He thinks that streaming technologies will eliminate the demand for distinct gaming hardware, and that gaming will become "platform agnostic." He sees this next evolution happening within 10 years.

“I think we will see another generation, but there is a good chance that step-by-step we will see less and less hardware,” Guillemot told Variety in a recent interview. “With time, I think streaming will become more accessible to many players and make it not necessary to have big hardware at home. There will be one more console generation, and then after that, we will be streaming, all of us.”

The way he sees it, shifting to a streaming model is the best way to ensure that the triple-A gaming industry continues to grow.

So much of our digital life has already shifted to the cloud. Our photos, documents, video, and various other files are already mostly available anywhere and from any device. Some would say, as Guillemot does, that cloud gaming is inevitable.

Indeed, most companies are working on or already have game-streaming services. Sony has PlayStation Now, which launched in 2014. Even though it is four-years-old, the service is still in its infancy as it struggles with lag and sub-par game selection, but it has improved immensely since it began.

GameFly started streaming games in 2015. It is ranked as one of the best video game streaming services by Digital Trends. Its technology is so promising that Electronic Arts recently paid an undisclosed amount to acquire the company's streaming assets and talent.

Even GPU maker Nvidia has introduced GeForce Now. The service is currently in beta testing, but the game selection is reasonably robust. Some of the titles on offer include Assassin’s Creed Origins, Wolfenstein II, PUBG, and much more.

While Microsoft does not currently have a streaming service, it is in the process of developing in a platform-agnostic direction. Company President Satya Nadella reportedly wants to change the way Microsoft looks at gaming.

“[Nadella] challenged us to make Microsoft the global leader in gaming by empowering everyone on the planet to play, watch, communicate, and create together,” Microsoft’s Executive Vice President of Gaming Phil Spencer told Variety. “[Gaming is] less about having specific devices to play a certain game on, but having your favorite games accessible on any device you have.”

The opportunities for cloud gaming are just beginning. Owning one copy of a game that you can play on anything from your phone to your 7-year-old laptop is an appealing thought. If technical hurdles can be overcome, streaming may become the standard.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/74986-ubisoft-ceo-yves-guillemot-game-streaming-replace-all.html

 

[davislane1]

The only thing holding this back is high speed internet access (gigabit). Once they are able to deliver zero latency streaming on a consistent basis, consoles (and gaming GPUs) will be old news.

 

[Takwin]

I don't see it due to latency and input lag. There is just no need to do away with things like a box under a TV. Will two gens from now have a disc drive, definitely not, but we will still have a box.

 

[davislane1]

There is just no need to do away with things like a box under a TV.

• Fewer cables
• Less space used
• Less power consumption
• No hardware bottlenecks
• No compatibility problems
• No updates

And that's just off the top of my head.

 

[amghwk]

He must be living in a building next to the ISP, with direct LAN connection.

Nothing will replace a fully loaded local device.

I do not want to subscribe to a gaming service to play my games.

I want to play whenever I want to, wherever I want, without the need of worrying of data connection.

 

[Danny101]

For one thing, some games require an online connection or Steam just for authorization.

 

[Danny101]

Hardware makers may balk because that's how they make their money.

 

[Misagt]

I personally will never buy a game I have to stream to play. This is CEO's of a gaming company's wet dream. Being able to have complete control over how and what you play. Just remember people how annoying it is when a game you life loses it's server. It's like that only worst as no one will ever get access to the gaming code.

 

[SirChocula]

Doubt.

 

[davislane1]

I personally will never buy a game I have to stream to play. This is CEO's of a gaming company's wet dream. Being able to have complete control over how and what you play. Just remember people how annoying it is when a game you life loses it's server. It's like that only worst as no one will ever get access to the gaming code.

Empty protest. You might not, but all the kids who will be in their teens and twenties when they bring this tech to the mainstream will.

They won't sell access to individual titles, either. They will have subscription models similar to Netflix, but probably tiered by publisher. Way more money in that.

 

[Misagt]

Empty protest. You might not, but all the kids who will be in their teens and twenties when they bring this tech to the mainstream will.

They won't sell access to individual titles, either. They will have subscription models similar to Netflix, but probably tiered by publisher. Way more money in that.

Oh I never said it wouldn't work I just said I wouldn't buy into it. As for the rest of what I said it was mostly a warning is all. If companies can make a billion off of a match 3 game I'm sure they can make this work too.

 

[penn919]

I personally will never buy a game I have to stream to play. This is CEO's of a gaming company's wet dream. Being able to have complete control over how and what you play. Just remember people how annoying it is when a game you life loses it's server. It's like that only worst as no one will ever get access to the gaming code.

Empty protest. You might not, but all the kids who will be in their teens and twenties when they bring this tech to the mainstream will.

They won't sell access to individual titles, either. They will have subscription models similar to Netflix, but probably tiered by publisher. Way more money in that.

If that would be the case, then one would have to wonder whether general computing will be streamed altogether. Think about it, if something as latency and graphically intensive as video games can be streamed successfully enough to be accepted by the mainstream, then that means pretty much anything else would too. We might end up with universal clients that does away with PCs and consoles. Everything will be a service accessed by the clients.

 

[Evernessince]

No thank you. The latency will always remain, no matter how fast internet speeds get. This makes FPS and competitive gaming completely unsuited for cloud gaming.

It's more like cloud gaming might make a decent substitute for single player console games. Otherwise those who want quality or lag free game play will look elsewhere.

There is just no need to do away with things like a box under a TV.

• Fewer cables
• Less space used
• Less power consumption
• No hardware bottlenecks
• No compatibility problems
• No updates

And that's just off the top of my head.

No updates? Nope, there will still be updates. The difference is, they will have to schedule updates for each server and you won't be able to play during that time. That's also assuming it is only a simple update that can be applied automatically without a technician's help. If it requires a hands-on process or borks features of the game you will be looking at a length server downtime.

Compatibility problems? Yes, you better hope your router can handle the traffic (which a majority of people's can't) and the device you are playing on. Most likely you will still need a pricey device to be able to play these games anyways. A Roku's CPU power isn't going to cut it.

Hardware bottlenecks? That depends on how the server company sets up it's servers/VMs. They could overbook a server with too many demanding VMs and you could experience performance issues. It's also very likely that you are going to get 30 FPS at medium settings. You completely give up your ability to control performance. Most likely higher performance / graphics will cost a pretty penny.

You just made a list of potential benefits without thinking of any of the possible drawbacks. The bandwidth requirement of game streaming is huge as is the introduced lag and potential for dropouts. That's not including lower graphical settings and you can kiss 144 Hz goodby. Price notwithstanding. You can get a year of Nvidia's game streaming service or you can simply buy a high end PC for the same price. I fail to see how game streaming is a good idea.

 

[Stark]

TLDR : Ubisoft streaming service incoming with 29.99$ monthly fee's over the 69.99$ base game and 99.99$ for deluxe edition and 129.99$ for season pass.
LMAO nope, not happening for reasons people have already stated, latency, server issues, net speed etc.
but the biggest would be the added cost of it.

 

[thews86]

Thats the wish of Ubisoft CEO, so they can literally control everything. I sure as hell wont be streaming games anytime soon, as I love my I-7 6700K and 980ti. Streaming cannot match the quality of local computing, I like my ultra settings + 144fps. Everybody is going to need 100% stable internet before this is even a legitimate discussion.

 

[Fearghast]

Latency, input lag, image fidelity, sound fidelity, VR, 4K, 144Hz ...
Don't get me wrong, IMHO streaming is probably the future, but we do not live in future, we live now.
Who cares what would be viable in 10 years, we change our phones "every" year, we upgrade/replace our PCs/laptops every 2-3 years, there will be x new refreshes/generations of consoles on the market ...

In future ... we will have flying cars and cities on the Mars.

 

[alabama man]

The only thing holding this back is high speed internet access (gigabit). Once they are able to deliver zero latency streaming on a consistent basis, consoles (and gaming GPUs) will be old news.

Yup, just can't see them streaming lossless 4K HDR ULTRAWIDE at 240fps with less than 1ms input lag. And when they get that right we will have 8K.

 

[Burty117]

I'm quite surprised after all these years they're still pushing game streaming. I don't know anyone who uses it and from the looks of this comment section and most comment sections on the internet, very few people actually use it.

I agree with most of the above though, Internet connections are terrible pretty much around the globe and even if they were good, latency, dropouts, server outages etc... will detract from the whole thing.

This stuff is only around still because publishers want complete control of what we get to play without being able to access game code therefore stopping piracy in it's tracks and being able to charge more.

"hhhmmm, people want demo's... How about a subscription based game streaming service instead?"

ffs

 

[axiomatic13]

This Ubisoft guy is high. The internet in America is not ready for this. Beyond that, this will not work for twitch games like FPS. If I can detect the lag from my damn mouse and kbd I can most assuredly detect latency from me using a mouse and kbd to a remote avatar running off a server somewhere far off? Try again in 10 years when we've upgraded the core internet backbone of America some more.

 

[IAMTHESTIG]

No, it won't.

 

[Shadowboxer]

As someone who works in corporate telecoms, the technology to stream high def, high refresh rate latency free gaming to users is out there and has been for years. The problem is getting it into peoples homes at reasonable prices. However in my opinion, if users spend what they currently spend on hardware on a suitably powerful network connection then we might actually get somewhere with this. Currently public networking is about 20 years behind the sort of stuff big companies with private networks are using.

Gigabit fibre to the property technology would cost you less to install than the latest graphics card and actually, the more people do it the cheaper it would become. The problem is the lack of infrastructure and streaming services. The only company making any headway in it seems to be Nvidia. Its a bit of a chicken and egg scenario though. How can you sell faster networks if people dont need it? And how can you sell game streaming if people dont have faster networks?

 

[yeeeeman]

Sorry, but he is wrong.

 

[pcnthuziast]

At least a decade away imho.

 

[pkroliko1]

I personally will never buy a game I have to stream to play. This is CEO's of a gaming company's wet dream. Being able to have complete control over how and what you play. Just remember people how annoying it is when a game you life loses it's server. It's like that only worst as no one will ever get access to the gaming code.

If it becomes another option like Netflix is to physical movies today, then I wouldn't really care. If they try to make it the only option then guess I will keep my old games and never play a new one again, oh well my interest in gaming was bound to die eventually. The kids might support this but I see the hardware nuts holding out on this one.

 

[adisoftcafe]

It is not a big problem in Europe. In Romania a plan for optical fiber unlimited internet 1000 Mb/s costs 11 USD/month.