Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot Pictures the Future of Games.

Hudo

Member
Jul 26, 2018
1,444
1,178
235
I like Guillemot but I don't really like his vision for the future. I'm not a fan of streaming even it is technically possible. I'd like to own my games, preferably in physical form. But I know I'm in the minority here. I also don't like that everything has to be open world. Don't misunderstand, I quite like open world games. Breath of the Wild, Morrowind (and Skyrim) and the Grand Theft Auto games are among my favourites. But I also enjoy linear games and I think there's merit to not be open world.
 

ruvikx

Member
Jan 12, 2018
937
1,568
235
Blockbuster thought that too...
Films are a different beast altogether. There's a hell of a lot more data & content in a game. Especially in terms of size, i.e. we've seen how the jump between generations in 2013 made game go from anywhere between 5gb & 15gb on last gen up to the current 40gb+ (often far more, especially for the 'open worlds'). All at just 1080p (& often lower). So good luck streaming a 4K video game (because that's the base resolution of the next gen).

It's a far distant future to the point of being a Utopian science-fiction fantasy at this point.
 

AprXSihezIII

Banned
Aug 19, 2018
101
100
195
Asking Ubisoft about what the future of games will be, is a bit like asking a certain dictator where the train goes.

Chances are, youll be disappointed.
 
Last edited:

Fuz

Member
Jun 8, 2009
3,900
2,355
785
Cagliari, Italy
If developers and publishers do away with physical ownership of games, I'm done with "modern gaming". I'll go back to an older system that I can put a physical game in, play and not worry
about whether or not servers are disabled for it, etc.

I'll say it until I can't pick up a controller anymore(I'm still young at 46) but fellow gamers really need to PUSH BACK HARD on this "streaming only", "no physical games console" talk.
Trust me, it's not something you want to "embrace" or "wish for". You'll be buying glorified "rental machines" and never really own the full price "digital only AAA" games.

Please, please, please do not embrace this. PUSH BACK HARD. It'll ruin gaming. All this talk of "well, there will be bigger worlds, graphics, etc" is pure PR BULLSHIT. The PS4/Pro, Xbox One/X
and hell, even the Nintendo Switch(Zelda) can do massive open worlds with nice graphical fidelity. So don't believe the "cloud computing", "streaming will make a better game" nonsense.

This is the future DEVELOPERS AND PUBLISHERS WANT. That should be enough of a red flag. Please. Push back hard on this.
Exactly this.
 

Starbuck2907

Member
Jan 14, 2012
853
53
525
We are a long, long way from streaming 4K games. Sure, it can work great in closed door lab conditions for nVidia or whoever else, but in the real world, it sucks because the internet connection quality and speed just isn’t there for many people and won’t be for a long time.

Also, can you imagine the hit on your data cap every month if you added video game streaming to tv streaming? Those data caps are still a problem for many people.

I think 20 or 30 years before this can even consider being a mainstream method of gaming.
 

mckmas8808

Gold Member
May 24, 2005
40,612
3,536
1,420
We are a long, long way from streaming 4K games. Sure, it can work great in closed door lab conditions for nVidia or whoever else, but in the real world, it sucks because the internet connection quality and speed just isn’t there for many people and won’t be for a long time.

Also, can you imagine the hit on your data cap every month if you added video game streaming to tv streaming? Those data caps are still a problem for many people.

I think 20 or 30 years before this can even consider being a mainstream method of gaming.
And if we are talking about 25 years from now, we might as well talking about self-driving cars first. Because they'll be here well before that.
 

Ballthyrm

Member
Jun 21, 2013
342
183
330
Montpellier
Sounds like a dystopian future for consumers and an utopian one for greedy publishers.
Lower barrier of entry is good for consumers.
It means more consumers who have access which means in turn, more consumers.
More consumers means a bigger pie, a bigger pie can sustain more games.

Apart from the death of physical media, i don't really see where we are losing here.
The bigger the market, the lower the prices because there is more competition for attention.
 
Dec 25, 2018
635
391
205
Manchester, England
If developers and publishers do away with physical ownership of games, I'm done with "modern gaming". I'll go back to an older system that I can put a physical game in, play and not worry
about whether or not servers are disabled for it, etc.

I'll say it until I can't pick up a controller anymore(I'm still young at 46) but fellow gamers really need to PUSH BACK HARD on this "streaming only", "no physical games console" talk.
Trust me, it's not something you want to "embrace" or "wish for". You'll be buying glorified "rental machines" and never really own the full price "digital only AAA" games.

Please, please, please do not embrace this. PUSH BACK HARD. It'll ruin gaming. All this talk of "well, there will be bigger worlds, graphics, etc" is pure PR BULLSHIT. The PS4/Pro, Xbox One/X
and hell, even the Nintendo Switch(Zelda) can do massive open worlds with nice graphical fidelity. So don't believe the "cloud computing", "streaming will make a better game" nonsense.

This is the future DEVELOPERS AND PUBLISHERS WANT. That should be enough of a red flag. Please. Push back hard on this.
They will soon come crawling back to the core gaming community if we ever left and the casuals move onto the next big thing that will likely not be gaming related.

They are chasing a magic unicorn at the moment where the majority will not pay a cent but want constant updates or they will try something else for free.

Ubisoft thankfully are not the forethinkers they claim to be, having 1000s of people on AssCreed for every game and will likely need another mega hit to sustain all those employees.
 
Last edited:

Spukc

Member
Jan 24, 2015
8,006
2,853
375
you can already see what the future is in ubisoft games.
they have been making the same fucking games for the last 10 years,
 
  • LOL
Reactions: sublimit

sublimit

Member
Aug 28, 2009
16,778
1,426
880
Lower barrier of entry is good for consumers.
It means more consumers who have access which means in turn, more consumers.
More consumers means a bigger pie, a bigger pie can sustain more games.

Apart from the death of physical media, i don't really see where we are losing here.
The bigger the market, the lower the prices because there is more competition for attention.
"A lower barrier for entry" into what exactly?
A "deal" that you give up all your consumer rights and you're forced to pay monthly or annual subscriptions for content you may or may not like without having the ability and right to get at least some of your money back?

Of course there would be a lower barrier of entry for something like that,they are not idiots. They need to give some cheese in order for the mouse to bite. But when there will be no other alternatives (physical media) don't be so sure that the "lower barrier of entry" will remain so low.
 
Last edited:

Gashtronomy

Member
Apr 19, 2019
577
553
190
Streaming is a load of corporate bollox. It's a way of keeping closed in to one ecosystem or paying through the nose for multiple systems.

You think ea access, xblg, gamepass and psn is bad now? Wait until you have to add ubi support, ubi support +, R*, COD, Fifa etc all at £20 a month.

Streaming does not benefit the gamer at all.

If these companies want gaming on the move then make a competent hand held.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickFire and Larxia

Larxia

Member
Jan 25, 2018
279
359
190
France
www.flickr.com
Films are a different beast altogether. There's a hell of a lot more data & content in a game. Especially in terms of size, i.e. we've seen how the jump between generations in 2013 made game go from anywhere between 5gb & 15gb on last gen up to the current 40gb+ (often far more, especially for the 'open worlds'). All at just 1080p (& often lower). So good luck streaming a 4K video game (because that's the base resolution of the next gen).

It's a far distant future to the point of being a Utopian science-fiction fantasy at this point.
Actually this doesn't really change anything, the resolution of the display itself does, yes, but the game data not really, since it's just a video feed, if you want a clear perfect picture of a game in motion in 1080p, the bitrate would need to be crazy high in both situation, without being related to the game's data itself, because it's just a video. Actually, streaming a very fast paced game like Bayonetta that is only 10gb would need a more stable high bitrate than something slower paced like Red Dead Redemption 2 that is over 100gb, it's really just a video.

However you are right that movies and games are a totally different thing, I don't even understand how can people say things like "people said that for movies... and look where we are now with netflix and such" but NO, this is different, movies never involved interaction, it's a passive media already pre encoded, movies have always been a video, you are not changing the nature of the media with streaming, you are just changing the way it's distributed, in fact, if they really wanted to they could actually stream movies with the same quality as a phsyical bluray, but that would never happen.

It's totally different for games where in the situation of cloud gaming you are actually totally transforming the nature of the media, turning a real time 3D scene feedback that can be altered with your actions, into a VIDEO. It's really not comparable and people need to stop saying that cloud gaming can be a thing just because movies succeeded (and I actually don't really agree, streaming often offer terrible bitrate compared to blurays) the change from local data to streaming, if people really want to make that comparison, the only fair and comparable one is the digital distribution for games instead of physical, but not streaming.

I don't even understand how can some people just accept this, this could be ruining gaming in so many aspects, for preservation of course but also quality wise, streaming is really not on the same quality standards as something directly rendered locally on your machine, video games always had that special thing about being rendered in real time, a media without any compression compared to videos, a crystal clear image always in real time, but somehow some people are fine with losing that and turning this into a compressed video with blocking, artifacts and latency.

It kills me how so many people are fine with sacrificing quality just for convenience and laziness.
 
Last edited:

Ballthyrm

Member
Jun 21, 2013
342
183
330
Montpellier
I don't even understand how can some people just accept this, this could be ruining gaming in so many aspects, for preservation of course but also quality wise, streaming is really not on the same quality standards as something directly rendered locally on your machine, video games always had that special thing about being rendered in real time, a media without any compression compared to videos, a crystal clear image always in real time, but somehow some people are fine with losing that and turning this into a compressed video with blocking, artifacts and latency.
It's not about quality though. People were saying the same thing when mp3 came out.
It was a lot worse than CDs and vinyl, BUT, and it's a big BUT, mp3 was convenient. Quality rarely wins the majority share, the vast public just don't care that much.

I know it's hard to accept, but there's a ton of people just don't give a Fack about all that. All they want is to turn their brains off and consume whatever is in front of them with the minimum amount of effort.

These people exist, they are legion, and yes, they are a cancer.
 

JLB

Member
Dec 6, 2018
157
113
170
I guess by the time this comes around I'll be leaving gaming. Not being able to own my own copy of a game (leaving me to a publisher's/developer's whims) is not a place I want to go. It's just to easy to abuse consumers with this kind of model.
hey, you still listen to music, or read books?
 

SonGoku

Gold Member
Aug 16, 2018
1,906
1,583
320
hey, you still listen to music, or read books?
For college/hs physical copies is the way to go, reading from a tablet its tiring and audiophiles get modern music from vinyls and cds still
Disclaimer: Digital games don't bother me but game streaming will always be one step behind local processing, so i don't think streaming games will ever take over.
 

Kerotan

Member
Oct 31, 2018
66
33
170
Nvidia's streaming solution is already viable at 2560x1440 output/60FPS/high-max settings and games that require precision input (Fortnite/Dark Souls 3/Kingdom Come Deliverance) were all playable on a 20mbit connection no problem. If this is what exists now, I can't imagine how good it'll be in 5-10 years.

Even the pricing is really good. One of Nvidia's competitors was selling 100 hours of gameplay for $30.
https://blog.liquidsky.tv/2018/05/25/new-pricing-plans/


I doubt purchasing a game outright will ever go away as long as people are interested in PC gaming. Don't know how much longer consoles will stick around since consoles are all about accessibility and what's more accessible than the equivalent of Netflix being built into every device?.... But PC gaming is safe.
PC gaming is just at risk. Being able to stream high quality gaming to any device could put people off paying €1,000 for a PC. Likewise with the laws of diminishing returns what happens when a cheap console hits the limit? Or the limit that's noticeable for the human eye. When a console hits 8k @120FPS you're really going to be here pushed to build a more expensive PC.

My point is longterm nobody is safe and we don't know how it plays out. I'm confident the PS6 will have a disc drive so physical gaming ain't dying yet.
 

Romulus

Member
Mar 21, 2019
296
281
185
Well, whichever company decides not to embrace this completely will have my monies. I like owning physical copies of my games.