Consoles Are Going Extinct, Says David Jaffe

[meji]

.....Far into the future in the year 3000, a young boy discovers the legend of the console while on an e-excursion to the Earth e-Museum....


Jimmy: Sir, what's that?

Teacher: Ah Jimmy that is what the old ones used to call an XBox 360.

Jimmy: What happened to them sir?

Teacher: Well Jimmy it appears a great cataclysm occured and all the consoles died.

Jimmy: Really sir?

Teacher: Yes Jimmy, it is known by scholars as the Red Ring of Death syndrome. For whatever reason they just all upped and died, kind of like robo-lemmings do.

[samurai047]

I prefer to render my own games thanks. It's nice that they are looking out for people without the hardware needed, but this better not be the only option for gaming in the future. I don't want some streamed video of my games with input lag.

[DXPetti]

I prefer to render my own games thanks. It's nice that they are looking out for people without the hardware needed, but this better not be the only option for gaming in the future. I don't want some streamed video of my games with input lag.

There is always a market for PC Gamers

[TRB]

[quote="Bogus"
kind of like thew argument for not needing the NBN "because I can already send email and read the interweb pages just fine right now, why would I need it quicker?"

Its actually nothing like that at all.

Actually it is. [/quote]

No, its not at all and since you don't seem to be able to explain why it is I'll tell you why it isn't.

The NBN argument [as stupid as it is] is about supply/demand and not about if its technically possible.

This is about it actually not being possible to replace what is going on now on any game on a console.
which it isn't and will not be.

games on consoles are already **** enough without having an extra 150ms of latency dropped on top of them in the input/output of your controller Vs what you see.

Yes you could play slow games, like card games [except snap], but anything requiring timely response will not work to a sufficient degree.

Go play a driving or shooting game with that network latency and processing latency and see how much fun it is.
While tech will improve there is a point where this kind of latency sees diminishing returns despite improvements in hardware.


That is not even considering the bandwidth requirement, which would be massive, on top of other bandwidth in use for other purposes.

So no, its not like the NBN argument you posted, one of supply/demand and the other is feasibility.

[Bogus]

Its actually nothing like that at all.

Actually it is.

No, its not at all and since you don't seem to be able to explain why it is I'll tell you why it isn't.

The NBN argument [as stupid as it is] is about supply/demand and not about if its technically possible.

This is about it actually not being possible to replace what is going on now on any game on a console.
which it isn't and will not be.

games on consoles are already **** enough without having an extra 150ms of latency dropped on top of them in the input/output of your controller Vs what you see.

Yes you could play slow games, like card games [except snap], but anything requiring timely response will not work to a sufficient degree.

Go play a driving or shooting game with that network latency and processing latency and see how much fun it is.
While tech will improve there is a point where this kind of latency sees diminishing returns despite improvements in hardware.


That is not even considering the bandwidth requirement, which would be massive, on top of other bandwidth in use for other purposes.

So no, its not like the NBN argument you posted, one of supply/demand and the other is feasibility.

Hey, I get that you are saying with the current infrastructures and technologies available, a widespread streaming service for games is not technically possible.
I even agree with that.

the point I am making and the reason why the 2 comments are similar, or at least from a similar way of thinking, is that those how say "streaming games will never be possible because it can't be done currently" have a similar way of looking at the situation as those who say "I don't need a 100Mb connection because my current connection does what I need just fine."

This point is that both comments are not considering the future and the amount of change that is guaranteed to occur.

IMO. The streaming argument really becomes one of timing.
It will be possible at some point, but when?
will it be before the end of the next gen of console (within 10 yrs)? Maybe.
Will it be too late (will a different more suitable alternative be already available)? Maybe.
But I don't not believe for one second that "it won't happen because all I can see is the tech in front of me, and that says 'no'"

Cheers

edit: fixed quote

[Bronze_D]

You could say the same however for the tech progress on PC and eventually... the console as well.

So we come back to square one since for a given price tag that the service gives, you have an increasing return as well for just using that money to get a PC or a console that are capable of rendering it locally.

The inherent problem is that the tech on the PC and console side is improving a heck a lot faster (in the case of PC it improves at lightning speed) compared to the rate in which the network infrastructure improves.

The customer of the streaming service in the case of cloud gaming essentially will have to pay for each latency improvement applied that involves some sort of hardware infrastructure be it a data center close to them or what not, and since the infrastructure is improving at snail pace compared to PC or even console tech, you'll never reach the point where expending money for such service will give a good return compared to just using them for purchasing a system capable of processing it locally with superior latency.

[frigidhell]

Just couldn't agree with Jaffe. Apparently, more and more gamers are planning to buy gaming consoles aside from making their PCs future-proof. The fact is, the future of gaming consoles is a lot brighter that how Jaffe sees it.