The end of physical media & dedicated hardware: Inevitable?

[dsheinem]

By now I am sure most of you have seen that Google is trying to "go big" into the streaming game service space later this year with their upcoming/just announced Stadia. Microsoft tried to do something similar at the launch of the Xbox One, and though they didn't go that route after criticism, are certainly hinting that their future is much more digital.

I myself tried Stadia's test-run ("Project Stream") and was surprised at the quality of the experience and impressed at how well it worked. While I wasn't entirely persuaded that the quality loss was worth ditching dedicated hardware/discs/downloads, I felt that the gap between what I experienced and what I'd demand from dedicated hardware was much smaller than I'd have expected. I also know that I tend to be pickier than the general population (as is likely true for many folks here), and I would bet that the experience was "good enough" for more users than not. I'd also bet that much of that relatively small gap will get closed in time.

My question, then, is whether or not the eventual end to dedicated hardware and physical media is (perhaps in another 20 years or so) inevitable. I certainly expect to see Sony release a PS5 and maybe a PS6 (or Nintendo to make a Switch U, MS an Xbox One X Two, etc.)...but I don't know if I expect to see a PS7 or later given the way things are going. I'm guessing dedicated gaming hardware will be passé in 15-20 years, and not worth manufacturing for the small niche market that might prefer distinct machines for distinct purposes.

I also realize that there are companies like Limited Run Games who have found success in appealing to collectors by turning downloadable titles into physical software...but I have to wonder if that same nostalgia for "ownership" and the "need" for a physical copy that underpins their success today will still be present (and with a large enough chunk of the population) in twenty years. Certainly many of today's teens (and younger) are conditioned to purchase most or all of their entertainment digitally, and the "media collector" mindset is one that is losing, not gaining, its cultural currency.

So, is the future of this medium that all high-end gaming will be done via streaming to your TV/phone/VR headset? At what point is it not worth the cost to game companies to manufacture physical media, develop dedicated consumer hardware, etc.?

[dsheinem]

One other quick thing...I can imagine the future of competition being about what gaming service has better streaming hardware. Consumers would choose based on which has the lowest latency, which has the beefiest (and, perhaps, exclusive) hardware powering their games, which service offers which games, etc. These hypothetical games would not be available physically or to download.

For example:

Sony PSTV 2040:
-NVIDIA GTZ 98900 video card array (exclusive contract, not available at retail)
-works flawlessly over 20mb connections
-16K resolution
-Uncharted 9, Son of God of War 4, etc.
-$25/month

vs

Nintendo Switch U Too:
-NVIDIA GTZn 92000 video card array (highest end PC card)
-works flawlessly over 15mb connections
-8K resolution
-Exclusives: Mother 2 Remastered, Metroid Prime 5, Mario Party 40, etc.
-$15/month

vs

Google Stadia 3.0:
-AMD Radeon 67930x video card array (only available in dev kits)
-works flawlessly over 20mb connections
-16K resolution
-Exclusives: Doom Infinity, Skylanders VR, Shenmue III, etc.
-$20/month

[Arenegeth]

I think it is the inevitable future that is dawning upon is.

I don't think it will be as close as 15-20 years though, but closer to 50 (considering we don't blow up the entire planet by then).

The internet infrastructure to make this method of distribution, a global reality doesn't exist yet. Is hard to realize that if you are living in a big metropolitan city, but there's a lot of regions, even in first world countries that don't have fast or stable access to the internet.

There's also the dumb issues some countries have with ISP providers, some tied up behind red tape and regulations.

Though I think all these issues will be solved eventually, it will take a considerable time for game streaming, to be the norm and replace current, normal, digital distribution, though physical media would have already disappeared by then.

Google's particular effort hasn't being put to the test with the general public yet, and like OnLive before it, I don't think it will catch on.

It will serve as an early example of what is to come though, like the Dreamcast Online functionality and the PSP Go, but the popular support is not there for it yet and the infrastructure is not there to back it.

Personally, the moment physical media becomes obsolete, I will revert completely to retro gaming, I'm already heading towards that direction for a variety of reasons.

Physical media will still be with us for at least one more generation, beyond that is uncertain, streaming will take considerably longer to catch up.

I may change my tune after Stadia is out and I notice its affect on the market, but currently, I don't think streaming is ready to usurp traditional consoles or PC gaming, but I think it most inevitably will in the future.

We all knew that day was coming, the moment digital distribution took off and Netflix became a thing.

[Gunstar Green]

Physical media, outside of niche collectors, has been on its way out for a while now. I don't think it will be long before digital-only consoles are the default. The death of dedicated hardware though, it's hard to say. High-quality streaming takes away the stress of needing to upgrade your hardware, but I suppose it depends largely on how gamers feel about ownership, knowing that the games they play might disappear at any time and being okay with that. It's worked for movies and TV though, so there's no reason why it can't work here.

There's also the question of how the costs will pan out for individuals. I don't buy a lot of games and when I do buy games it's not usually at full price. $20 a month might actually be asking me to pay more than I normally do. It gives me access to a much broader library but the value of that will greatly depend on how much you take advantage of it. That's ignoring how much you have to pay every few years for dedicated hardware as well, but if other companies launch competing services, and they will if Stadia is a success, things will really start to add up.

That fact that it's Google behind this gives it a much better chance than previous attempts like OnLive. If it catches on with the general population, it won't much matter what the enthusiasts think. In the foreseeable future though, I think there's room for both in the same way physical media has clinged to life despite people's acceptance of the digital reality, especially among PC gamers.

[alienjesus]

I definitely think the writing is on the wall for physical media, as sad as that makes me. Digital sales are starting to overtake physical already, even on platforms like Switch where it's super low internal memory space and the high price of eShop titles compared to physical should be a concern for people.

However, dedicated hardware is one I think won't disappear, just evolve. I think we'll still see console manufacturers put out their own systems, just with digital sales as the exclusive way to purchase games. I'm also not convinced that Google's approach of a game streaming service is going to become the norm in the near future - I have concerns not just with quality and lag, but I also wonder just how much of a cut game developers are going to get and whether it can support the huge costs of modern development.

[Ziggy]

"Collectors" have probably always made up the smaller percentage of gamers anyway. Of the people you know that game, how many of them have collections for consoles past? Of course, I mean NOT including the people you know on this forum or other gaming forums. Me, personally, just one besides myself. One person out of the dozens of people I know that game own games for multiple older consoles. Everyone else I know might have a few games per generation, and trade up whenever the next gen hits. Streaming makes sense for these people in more ways than not.

The prospect of paying monthly for a streaming service versus paying per game really bugs me. For example, I bought a PS4 and about 4 games in October, but I haven't played any of those games yet. If I were paying monthly to stream PS4 games, I would have wasted several months of paying for a service that I didn't use. But I paid a one time fee for those games, so it doesn't matter when I play them. I mean, I'm an adult. I can't guarantee gaming time. I might game very heavily one month, then not at all for several months.

I was recently thinking about trying Audible since I have a good commute. I was disappointed to find out that you pay per month rather than per title. What if a month goes by that I'd rather listen to music instead of a book? They're smart to do it this way, because they know this. They know I might buy one book for $15, then maybe wont buy another for several months. Versus paying them $15 per month whether I use it or not.

My biggest fear with streaming and the lack of ownership is that when company A and company B can't make a deal, you go to load your favorite game up one day and get a message saying, "Sorry, this game is no longer available."

But anyway, I feel like collectors have always made up a small percentage of the market. We just didn't know it because for the longest time physical media was the only option. Having a large library of something didn't make you a collector, it was just a necessity in order to play/listen/watch those items. Of the people I know that are my age or younger, I only know a few people that have a collection of movies or music. Streaming has come a long way for movies and music, it is so easily accessible so no one bothers to own them physically anymore. They never cared to in the first place, there just wasn't any other options. Video games are no different.

[marurun]

Several years ago we discussed this topic at length, and one point I brought up then, that I'll reiterate now, is that many people who play games do not have adequate access to the internet. Even if digital games distribution becomes the norm, there will always be a need to get games to those with unreliable access. Furthermore, in the US at least, bandwidth caps are a real thing for many who do have reliable 'net access. So if digital, online distribution becomes the new standard, there will still be a need for some kind of delivery mechanism outside of that. Maybe it will be locked, encrypted, pre-loaded SD cards. Maybe you'll drive to a store and they will charge you a fee to load the game for you. I don't know what those solutions are going to look like, but there will have to be those solutions.

[Jmustang1968]

"Collectors" have probably always made up the smaller percentage of gamers anyway. Of the people you know that game, how many of them have collections for consoles past? Of course, I mean NOT including the people you know on this forum or other gaming forums. Me, personally, just one besides myself. One person out of the dozens of people I know that game own games for multiple older consoles. Everyone else I know might have a few games per generation, and trade up whenever the next gen hits. Streaming makes sense for these people in more ways than not.

The prospect of paying monthly for a streaming service versus paying per game really bugs me. For example, I bought a PS4 and about 4 games in October, but I haven't played any of those games yet. If I were paying monthly to stream PS4 games, I would have wasted several months of paying for a service that I didn't use. But I paid a one time fee for those games, so it doesn't matter when I play them. I mean, I'm an adult. I can't guarantee gaming time. I might game very heavily one month, then not at all for several months.

I was recently thinking about trying Audible since I have a good commute. I was disappointed to find out that you pay per month rather than per title. What if a month goes by that I'd rather listen to music instead of a book? They're smart to do it this way, because they know this. They know I might buy one book for $15, then maybe wont buy another for several months. Versus paying them $15 per month whether I use it or not.

My biggest fear with streaming and the lack of ownership is that when company A and company B can't make a deal, you go to load your favorite game up one day and get a message saying, "Sorry, this game is no longer available."

But anyway, I feel like collectors have always made up a small percentage of the market. We just didn't know it because for the longest time physical media was the only option. Having a large library of something didn't make you a collector, it was just a necessity in order to play/listen/watch those items. Of the people I know that are my age or younger, I only know a few people that have a collection of movies or music. Streaming has come a long way for movies and music, it is so easily accessible so no one bothers to own them physically anymore. They never cared to in the first place, there just wasn't any other options. Video games are no different.

So a bit of a side topic with audible. Yeah you pay $15 a month, but that basically generates you 1 credit a month with which you exchange for an audio book, any further books need be purchased. Credits accumulate. So it isnt a subscription in this same sense. However, the credits can be considered a "deal" as most ebooks are $25-30 if just purchased without a credit, so in a sense will save money.

[dsheinem]

but there will have to be those solutions.

I'm not convinced that the effort/costs of making these solutions work are worthwhile for the folks who would have to provide them...

[Ack]

but there will have to be those solutions.

I'm not convinced that the effort/costs of making these solutions work are worthwhile for the folks who would have to provide them...

Maybe, but the hacking and modding communities will figure out their own solutions as quickly as possible.