Wada predicts all consoles will die

By Robert Purchese Published 17 December, 2009

Squenix boss won't blink when they do.

Square Enix overlord Yoichi Wada won't be surprised when one morning he wakes up and consoles have disappeared forever, because he reckons that's what Microsoft and Sony have been planning all along.

"Let's say in ten years time what we traditionally call 'console games' simply won't exist. The exact timing at which it will go away is hard to determine, but somewhere around 2005 the console manufacturers' strategy shifted," Wada told Develop.

"In the past the platform was hardware, but that switched to the network. So a time will come when the hardware isn't even needed any more, because the true strength of the Xbox 360 is Xbox Live.

"Instead of relying on the hardware layer the network becomes the operating system," he added. "That move away from clients to the network is something Microsoft has done - moving from clients to the server is something Sony has done. If we take a look at the PS3 we can see that it is like a home server in a sense - the Cell chip is well matched to the parallel processing we use on server-based games."

That's an "over-simplified explanation" but more-or-less what Square Enix thinks is going on at those companies. Wada you think about that?

For now however, Wada's attention will be on today's Japanese release of Final Fantasy XIII, and the subsequent European and North American launch on 9th March 2010.

Oh and after that he'll be busy with Final Fantasy XIV, an MMO due out sometime next year. That's not to mention his new publishing taken onboard after buying Tomb Raider maker Eidos earlier this year.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (98) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • El-Dev #1 2 years ago

    Step away from the crack pipe Wada.

  • Odessa #2 2 years ago

    Ähm... and where is the network connected too??

  • kangarootoo #3 2 years ago

    "Instead of relying on the hardware layer the network becomes the operating system"

    So he has finally cottoned on to what some parts of the business have been saying for about 3 or 4 years. Well done that man.

  • kangarootoo #4 2 years ago

    @Odessa

    A thin client.

  • Moz #5 2 years ago

    Errm... half of that makes absolutely no sense. I'm hoping that's just really bad translation cos it realy does read like half the words are missing!!

    But the sentiment is accurate, the way things are going in 10 years time the console that sits under your TV will be a thin client to a cloud server. On the plus side one possible payment model could a monthly subscription that gives you access to all games on the service.

  • Darren #6 2 years ago

    Funnily enough, I'm kind of looking forward to the day when ALL games can be played on one single platform, whatever that is, because, quite frankly, having to buy all the consoles to play all their exclusive games is not only expensive but it creates unnecessary clutter.

  • davisorle #7 2 years ago

    Wadafuck did just happen.. He had it there for a while but lost it after he started contradicting his own words when he got to the PS3 part being used as a server!? Which if he does see it that way then the console will not be lost, instead the console use will be strengthened if used the way mentioned.

    Nehao.. Lets wait and see a few more years pls ;)

  • penhalion #8 2 years ago

    Not sure what all the fuss is about really. The article is very misleading. Basically what he was saying was that consoles would simply be highly capable set-top boxes that acted as entertainment hubs for the home (music, video, games etc. etc.). You'd effectively rent a game on the box and play it over a network. Seems reasonable to me except that for it to work, you'd need both Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo to play ball and go for a single unified spec on the hardware. This effectively makes them all just large software publishers.

    That's the magic point at which games really do become like movies. With uber studios churning out their summer blockbusters and christmas hits while you and I and average Joe simply rent them for a fortnight onto our boxes, buy the ones we really like and don't even consider who made the games because we don't have any company specific hardware to be fanboyish over.

    Of course the elephant in the room (well three large elephants in reality) are Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo who will only give up their slices of the hardware pie as it's pried out of their cold, dead fingers!

  • Xerx3s #9 2 years ago

    They are barely able to host games with a tolerable amount of lag, let alone stream the whole thing. Even if THEY could, the network infrastructure is simply not there and it won't be for some time. They would severely limit their market.

  • robg #10 2 years ago

    This is always a ridiculous argument; by the time (read: if ever) networks and server farms are powerful enough to render even today's games without perceptible lag, it'll look rubbish compared to what a PS5 (or whatever) under your TV will be able to do. It might conceivably work with "casual" gaming, but never with hardcore.

  • Wolverfrog #11 2 years ago

    Anyone else think that would make an amazing horror movie?

    "The day the consoles vanished."

  • kangarootoo #12 2 years ago

    @Moz and davisorle

    I think when he talks about the PS3 being a server, what he really means is that it is acting as a hub. Meaning you can play games, listen to music, watch movies, and so on.

    If you take that hub, shift it to an external location, and deliver content to a thin client in your home (which I believe is what he is getting at), it all makes sense really. I think it may have been a translation issue, or just him stumbling over what words to use to get his thoughts across.

  • youhavenomail #13 2 years ago

    "Wada predicts all consoles will die"

    They will if Microsoft are the only company left making them.

    [insert basilbrush.gif here]

  • DrDamn #14 2 years ago

    @Penhalion
    How about a single high spec box which can run multiple OS? Want to play MS games and use Live - boot up into the Dashboard, want to play Sony stuff and connect to PSN - boot up into XMB. They'd love that wouldn't they? The hardware is part of what enables what they want to do, but for both it's been a royal pain in the arse. If they can offload that to more usual manufacturers then just concentrate on the software ... now that would be sweet.

  • HermitArcader #15 2 years ago

    Post deleted at 09:17:39 22-12-2011

  • kendoji #16 2 years ago

    Wada you think about that?

    LOL I'm so easily pleased. :)

  • Murton #17 2 years ago

    Sorry Wada, but it's just not going to happen. Both MS and Sony are investing in cloud systems, that is true but to replace the console entire and take everything online would be folly. If we pretend for a moment that these cloud systems could run games in exactly the same fashion as a dedicated console in your living room, same graphics, same frame rates, same stability, the telecommunicaations infrastructure simply isn't in place to sustain acceptable quality of service.

    The UK has terribly outdated telecoms and nobody seems here to be overly concerned about it. The UK is a huge gaming market that will have to be effectively abandoned under these plans and we're not the only country that shows such disinterest in the state of its broadband network. I think if you apply a little logic the cloud systems are likely to replace or upgrade the current network rather than replace the console itself.

  • chrisjm #18 2 years ago

    having seen the current tech that enables this, i really hope it isnt the way things go.

  • kangarootoo #19 2 years ago

    @robg

    "it'll look rubbish compared to what a PS5 (or whatever) under your TV will be able to do"

    I'm sorry, but I have to question what you are basing that assumption on.

    The implication is that a console under your TV will be more powerful than a huge system in a data centre, custom designed to render high quality game scenes. I suggest that is simply not true.



    You can compare things like this.

    1. You have your own console sitting under your TV. It costs you XYZ to buy. When you are playing games it is running your games (obviously), but when you aren't playing games it does nothing at all. It just sits there costing you money.

    And the manufacturer made as fast a games machine as they could... WITHOUT the end result being so expensive that you don't buy it. This is the most important bit.


    2. You fill a data centre with similar machines (multi-threads on one big machine, or a farm of individual machines, it doesn't matter). When you are playing games one of the systems is running your games for you, but crucially when you aren't playing games that same system is running games for someone else. There is little down time the way there is when your own console is sat under your TV, so the cost is shared.

    Now instead of using that shared cost to give the customer a saving, you plough it back into making the "games console server thing" even more powerful. As before the manufacturer wants to make as fast a machine as possible, but again they don't want to price it out of the market. But in this instance, the shared cost means that for the same overall cost to you the end user, they can actually make an even more powerful machine.


    This is why I think your assumption is wholly incorrect. Distributed computing is more efficient computing. Instead of a PC on everyone's desk, you spec a server to do the same job, and it ends up costing less so you can make it more powerful for the same amount. This structure exists right now in the business sector, so there is no reason why the same model of cost to power shouldn't apply to a gaming machine.
    Edited by 2 at 17/12/09 @ 11:09

  • kangarootoo #20 2 years ago

    @Murton

    People would have probably said the same thing about Spotify 5-10 years ago.

  • teabagger #21 2 years ago

    Yes yes, but this all relies on all target users having super-fast and super-reliable net connections which I think most people agree is a long way off indeed.

  • jaxon58 #22 2 years ago

    The second hand market is pushing this forward.
    Imagine not being able to get games as birthday/christmas gifts anymore :(

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #23 2 years ago

    The trouble with cloud computing with respect to games is that now, and for a long time to come, client hardware will be cheaper than network bandwidth. In fact, I suspect that will always be the case.

  • kangarootoo #24 2 years ago

    @teabagger

    Nobody has said this will happen anytime soon.

    Just think how rubbish broadband was across the UK 5 or so years ago? Patchy coverage, with average speeds of 512kbps.

    Now almost all of the UK has coverage, with 20mbps being the standard speed ceiling (agreed, people rarely get 20mbps, but 8-12 is pretty common).


    When companies start down this road, they need to do so years in advance. Now is the time to start designing the model, before the network is up to the job. Doing so aftwards means getting left behind. Do you think people started planning moon landings before or after they could safely put a man in space?

  • kangarootoo #25 2 years ago

    @Mentalist(air)

    Why is that a problem though?

    If I spent £400 on 3 years worth of gaming, I don't really care whether 75% of that went on the console and 25% went on the broadband, or vice versa. I just care about the total cost and the quality of the experience.

    Surely one of the points of the cloud model is that client hardware is so cheap that the vendor supplies it for free, and the gamer just pays a subscription for the service.

    I agree with your observation, but I'm not sure where your "The trouble with" bit came from.
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 11:21

  • Xerx3s #26 2 years ago

    kangarootoo: Just curious. Let's take a game such as COD6. Sold about 6 to 8 million copies? Lets say that there are 1 million games active at all times. Do you think that any combination of datacenters (and the related infrastructure) in the world will be able to render 1080p+ (it's probably a higher res by that time) at 30 to 60fps for a million users, then also stream 5.1/7.1 surround sound AND have a good responsive control system? And that is not even counting all the hundreds of other games that other people will be playing at the same time.

    Those streaming services that where announced don't even render half that amount of data and even under the lab conditions they showed significant response lag and crappy looking games.

    It will probably be one day possible in the best internet parts of the world (western europe, the US, Japan) but not only is that moment still far away, it would lock out the rest of the world. They have been heavily upgrading the networks here but I highly doubt that it is advanced enough to handle such loads and I highly doubt that they will take the next step any time soon.

    Even IF all this wasn't an issue, what about data limits? Over here we don't have them but I know that a lot of my xbl friends do, people would be way over their limit when they even play a game for an hour or so.

    Your points about performance and cost are spot on though.

  • JetSetWilly #27 2 years ago

    Wada obviously knows something about global levels of investment in broadband infrastructure that no-one else does.

  • robg #28 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    1) The server farm has to be powerful enough to cope with peak demand (it has to pretty much have inside it the equivalent of 1 PS5 per user anyway, and it also then has to be able to cope with the load of passing each rendered frame for each player through an H.264 encoder) and you have to pay for that. There will be some savings here (no retail cost of hardware) and many extra costs (they have to pay for a massive climate-controlled, 5-nines uptime building).

    2) The network has to be perfect. And not just bandwidth (although it needs constant - handwave - 15Mbps). It needs extremely low latency, which is the unsung killer. For example I doubt that MW2's bandwidth requirements are that much higher than Quakeworld's (where is each player, where are they aiming, what have they fired, 30 times a second) but even though bandwidth is over a thousand times what it was when I played Quake online, you still get latency issues, because bandwidth is not the only fruit.

    3) I reiterate that for simple games, this may work well. Heck, I remember 10 years ago playing Puzzle Bobble on my mate's TV, Sky delivering it over the air.
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 11:42

  • jambo74 #29 2 years ago

    Yeah as they REALLY want to lose all that console cash!

  • butler` #30 2 years ago

    in two words: no shit

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #31 2 years ago

    Bandwidth and latency are always going to be the major issues with cloud gaming.

    Whilst I agree that in theory, having millions of consoles in peoples homes which spend most of their time switched off is wasteful compared to investing the equivalent amount in a datacentre, I'd argue that it is necessary redundancy, in order to offset the costs and problems caused in delivering the datacentre's output to end-users.

    ISPs in the UK are arguing amongst themselves about the effects on their network of Youtube and the predominatly SD BBC iPlayer. I admit that there may come a time when a combination of network, digital delivery and software platform may become more important than branded console boxes, and Xbox Live or PSN become the equivalent of the DVB standard, embedded directly into TVs or £15 boxes mass-produced by faceless companies in China before having stickers for Tesco's 'technica' brand put on them. But they'll still be 'fat' clients, I'd wager. Fat clients can use tricks such as Unreal Tournament's velocity prediction of old, to combat poor network conditions, but thin clients are stuck with them.

  • butler` #32 2 years ago

    my feelings exactly Mentalist(air)

    if only BT would have invested in something useful rather than 21cn

  • munki83 #33 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    There are many parts of the uk that are still in the dark ages of broadband. In my area for example we struggle to get the 2mbps connection BT claim we have and also with the rise of popularity of having broadband my connection is extremely slow at peak times.

    I understand the benefits of cloud computing and the fact that your console will be a simple piece of hardware means that this generations failure rate (mostly 360 but psx3 as well) will be a thing of the past. My main concern is that once you take the stores away we are going to be left dealing with the publishers directly and although steam has got some good prices a lot of the products c an be bought cheaper else where. To put it bluntly CoD 8 may cost you the full £55 insted of supermarkets willing to take a loss.

  • stevetuck #34 2 years ago

    I can hear the cries from virgin media customers now when they playing Halo 303045034 and it suddently starts lagging tue to 'traffic limits' :D
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 12:04

  • KDR_11k #35 2 years ago

    He talks about the 360 and the PS3. What about the Wii which is currently beating the other two badly? The Wii is NOT moving away from the hardware, it goes the opposite direction. Cloud gaming cannot work with the way the Wii is going. If you upgrade the interface the user has to buy new hardware, no way around it. Wii Fit. Wii Sports Resort. Those would not be possible if the Wii had been a cloud system. I know hardcore gamers love to pretend these games don't matter but they are the biggest movement in gaming right now and they cannot exist without hardware. Hell, below the article I'm seeing an ad banner for DJ Hero. How does your cloud create a turntable?

    The cloud is flying so high it's losing touch with the customer.

  • dirk_aircool #36 2 years ago

    KDR_11K
    damn right,gaming is more hardware driven than ever.and they keep inventing ways to sell more. How much room do you need to store all the console related stuff ?( Drum set ,multiple gutuars ,steering wheels and pedals ,skateboard ,balance board blah blah blah ). on top of that many people have a Wii and a 360 or PS3 AND a Pc.some have all.I can't see big companies not selling game hardware. they LOVE selling stuff.selling a service on top of the hardware must be like the cake icing to them.

    @Darren.That would be a bleak day for gamers when there was zero competition and you had to pay into a monopoly of that magnitude.
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 12:37

  • sneetch #37 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    If you take that hub, shift it to an external location, and deliver content to a thin client in your home (which I believe is what he is getting at), it all makes sense really. I think it may have been a translation issue, or just him stumbling over what words to use to get his thoughts across.

    However there are obvious, massive costs associated with providing an acceptable level of service for this kind of gaming model, especially the hosting and hardware costs (but also energy costs). The end users may not be able to or willing to pay them.

    Far better IMO to have the end user continue to buy a "thick" client (similar to the current Xbox/PS/Nintendo) that backs onto and requires your servers but runs the game itself locally.

  • funkateer #38 2 years ago

    Wada is just making an observation of where the industry is obviously headed.

    I think that there's this common misconception that a gaming console will soon be reduced to some simple and cheap network-connected client device that receives raw a/v streams and sends just controller input data. That's simply too inefficient and will not happen.
    But we see streaming gameplay happening a lot already today; Not using thin clients, but fat clients. But hey, 'thin' or 'fat' is all just relative. What's a 'fat client' today will be considered 'thin' tomorrow...

  • Xerx3s #39 2 years ago

    Hell, not even when broadband is up to scratch will it be oke. I'm on a 150mbit line and I still get massive lag spikes, simply because they host is not up to scratch (the architecture decides that a US or even a shitty UK host is better for the group as a whole). Downloading on xbl is lightning fast though, most demo's are done within a minute or two.

  • kangarootoo #40 2 years ago

    @Xerx3s

    I can't really speculate with any accurracy on whether said data centre machines would be "up to the job". That simply comes down to whatever kit is developed and how powerful it is.

    The control system is the bigger hurdle in my eyes. Any lag there is more noticeable than anything, but I'm sure there are imaginative solutions to be found.

    As for bandwidth limits, the future of broadband will fundamentally depend on its ability to support the services that vendors want to deliver and consumers want to receive. If the existing model of strict bandwidth limits gets in the way of that, it will simply have to change or the broad band companies that refuse to do so will get left behind by those that agree.

    None of that stuff is set in stone, it is just a company imposed limit that can change at the whim of the company. Its no different to your voice and text limit on your mobile phone - you buy the deal that suits your needs.


    @robg

    A lot of what you say seems to be referring to current tech. Specifics like H.264, 15mbps and MW2 are all pretty current terms. I don't know what the tech will be doing in 10 years, I just now is the time to start thinking about what the services might be.

  • Murton #41 2 years ago

    Kangarootoo: you make a good point with Spotify, but you have to bear in mind that the required bandwidth to stream audio in a single direction cannot compare to even attempting a two-way interactive HD transmission such as gaming over a cloud network.

    ISPs in the UK are still whining about the alleged effects of Youtube, Last.fm, iPlayer and online gaming is having their networks and rather than invest and upgrade they whine and impose draconian restrictions on their services such as data caps and throttling all traffic at so-called "peak times".

    This whole cloud computing idea is so dependent on everyone having access to high bandwidth and reliable connections with very low latency, something which simply isn't available to the vast majority of the world, including Europe and America. Some countries have made a start on upgrading their networks but the majority haven't and until they do cloud computing will remain an unrealised possibility.

  • StooMonster #42 2 years ago

    kangarootoo: People would have probably said the same thing about Spotify 5-10 years ago.

    Yes, but does Spotify make any money? AFAIK it's making a huge loss.

    One has to remember that games industry is a business, so if network based business models are more profitable than existing approach (or a halfway house with fat clients and downloaded or streamed content) then they will prevail and if not they won't.

    Another consideration is the licence fees that Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo get from software developers ... that's how they make their money, Microsoft and Sony certainly don't on the hardware (at least not for half of life-cycle).

  • mr.smeg #43 2 years ago

    The next generation of consoles will be browsers? What the faaa!

  • kangarootoo #44 2 years ago

    @Murton

    I'm talking about the attitudes of people to what can and can't "be done". I realsie the tech requirements are different, but the same "the internet isn't up to it" statements would have still been made 10 years ago (and rightly so, 'cos we were all on dial-up back then).

    Predicting the reaction to future technology using attitudes to today's technology is risky, that is all I'm saying.


    @StooMonster

    "Yes, but does Spotify make any money? AFAIK it's making a huge loss."

    No doubt it is, as it is still in its startup phase, but it is a planned loss that lays the foundations for future profits.

    Amazon was losing money hand over fist for over 2 years, but by doing so they lay the lath to being one of the worlds largest online suppliers. And the capital investors that poured money into the pit at the start are probably very glad they did so right now.

    Every business makes losses until it reaches its break even point. And the average time to break even for a successful UK business is 18 months. The "loss" you describe is called investment in other circles. Its only a problem if your plan to recoup that investment falls behind schedule, and Spotify is probably on schedule.

  • kangarootoo #45 2 years ago

    @sneetch

    Terms like "massive costs" can be misleading. What matters is the end cost to the user. eBay no doubt suffer massive costs in running eBay, but it works just fine for them.

    I'm not too precious about the details, and a slightly thicker than think client may indeed be a solution for one company or another. I am just favouring the general likelyhood that the future model of gaming will include "offsite" hardware that delivers a service. Whether that offsite hardware runs the whole game, or a bit of it, or just streams levels to the user as required... really I don't know. If I really did, you can bet I wouldn't talk about it out loud here, I'd invest in it ;)

  • feistycheese #46 2 years ago

    'Wada predicts all consoles will die'

    -----------------------------------------


    God damn anti-drug elitists, not just happy with the power they have in sport, now they are trying to flex their muscles in the world of gaming!!!

  • StooMonster #47 2 years ago

    kangarootoo: I was a professional VC for a number of years, so understand breakeven point perfectly. ;) However, some businesses never breakeven and just burn through cash until the plug is pulled ... I suspect that Spotify could be one of those rather than an Amazon.

  • sneetch #48 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    @sneetch

    Terms like "massive costs" can be misleading. What matters is the end cost to the user. eBay no doubt suffer massive costs in running eBay, but it works just fine for them.

    Actually, what really matters is the cost to the company. The user costs come from that. But that's just pedantry on my part. ;)

    You're right that eBay probably do have "massive costs" running eBay. Now imagine if the eBay client required the processing power of an Xbox or PS3 to render (per user) and they had to then pay to stream the HD picture across the net how much more massive the costs would be.

    Take World of Warcraft which has 11 million subscribers and a "classic" thick client/server model, I think we can agree that the costs of running an additional (theoretical maximum of) 11 million clients on top of those servers would be considerably larger.

    Personally I believe they (the console manufacturers) will be quite happy selling us thick clients for a long time to come. If nothing else the responsibility of maintaining those clients is ours.

  • omraya #49 2 years ago

    And I predict all will die..
    everything living today will some day be dead.

  • RexRunti #50 2 years ago

    There a couple of points here, firstly on what Wada was saying. Microsoft is a software company and I have always suspected that the Xbox is a way of eventually have DirectX monopolising the console market. All games on the 360 have to run on top of directX this means when the Xbox 1080 comes out every single game will be backwards compatible, it also means MS could release a new SKU with a different manufacturer of graphics card and cpu and the machine would not have any noticible difference in playing games. But most importantly it means MS can give the specifications easily to Toshiba, Panasonic and even Sony and have Toshiba Xboxes, Panasonic Xboxes etc. Eventually you could have cable boxes and even TVs with built in Xboxes. You can't have a PS3 without a cell processor.

    Now on cloud computing. Cloud computing has existed for years, at least in local forms. There are multiple ways of using thin clients in a business setting, things like Terminal Server allow a computer with barely any gubbins to connect with a server and run things like Office and save files despite not having a hard drive and barely more than a keyboard and monitor. Now, who here uses a system like this at work? Anyone? Quite frankly it is easier and cheaper to install Office on every machine and have a central server manage each update and copy changes to files when required. The same will be true of games, where things like latency and connection quality are even more important. Yes there are various tricks you can use to compensate for poor latency and connection quality, but they require at least the receiver to either predict or preprocess what's coming from the server which of course requires a fat client.

  • kangarootoo #51 2 years ago

    @StooMonster

    Well, spotify could go either way and I have no insider knowledge. I just don't think that making losses is a safe guide as to which way they will go. I suspect we agree on that though.


    @RexRunti

    We sort of agree, though about slightly different things. We agree that the XBox was never about making game hardware.

    The detail we perhaps disagree on is that my money is on the master plan being the propogation of Window Live IDs rather than DirectX. Imo MS want everyone to have an online identity that passes through MS's network. They would like us all to do our shopping, send emails, make phone calls, book our holidays, pay our restaurant bills and play games using the same universal MS affiliated ID.

    Though perhaps it is both. MS are just the sort of company to have more than one master plan :)

  • robg #52 2 years ago

    The terms I use are current. It obviously doesn't make a difference which game you talk about (that was just an example of latency); which video codec you use (you still need a massive amount of computing power to encode to video in real time); or how much bandwidth you need (in 10 years' time it'll probably take far more bandwidth to stream out the 2160p 3D video or whatever it is local hardware could serve).

    TBH it just sounded as though you didn't read/get my post. I hope this one makes the concepts simpler to understand.

  • YourMessageHere #53 2 years ago

    I think rather than technology being the primary barrier to this concept, network provider's attitudes seem to me the largest obstacle. As many have pointed out, broadband is very patchy depending on where you live, and has been throughout its entire hstory in the UK. They continue to whine about the terrible effects of iPlayer and youtube on the network infrastructure out of one side of their mouths, yet try to sell their services on the back of such popular things out of the other. They have a responsibility to provide what their customers demand.
    Communications firms seem totally focused on selling to new customers - yes, they are businesses, I know - and have very little interest in maintaining customers through good service provision or customer relations. When BT was state-owned, it was lumbering and inefficient, but it was seen as a public service first and foremost. Today it does the same job but it's purely a commercial entity, and I seriously question whether it is more effective and offers better value compared to the bills we pay than it would if it were still run by the state, as a public service.

  • sneetch #54 2 years ago

    @YourMessageHere

    Not just the UK it's the same with a lot of countries, I imagine. In Ireland I moved house in August, I moved a distance of less than 5 miles. Previously I used to have a fantastic 20m connection, I now have a 3m one that was the best I could get and costs me substantially more (it never actually gets above about 2m). The copper to the house I'm currently in is about 12 years old and they won't be upgrading it any time soon.

    Next August I'm moving back. :)

  • kangarootoo #55 2 years ago

    @robg

    I understood your post. I was just saying I think you are making subjective judgements on future technologies, using current technologies as a reference point (which is cool, but it is by nature subjective).

    In your last post you said "you still need a massive amount of computing power to encode to video in real time", but what does that even mean? Back when my desktop PC was running a single CPU at 75MHz, my current somewhat aged 1.6GHz home PC would have been viewed as massive computing power with a capital M. And in 10 years time, what we consider today to be massive computing power will be regarded as feeble.

    I am just suggesting that if we can't look at one aspect of an imagined future (file sizes and polycounts) without at least entertaining the idea that the technologies (the bandwidth and GPUs) will gain power alongside the demands placed on them.

  • robg #56 2 years ago

    My basic point is that for every advance that's made in encoding/bandwidth/latency/rendering, another five will come along in hardware that you put under your TV (probably the same advances). As I say, simple games which don't use the latest hardware might be a good idea, but never for the latest games.

    Your 1.6Ghz PC may look amazing compared to a 75MHz box (even though Moore's Law Is Breaking), and hey, possibly even could render a game that ran on your 75MHz PC, and encode it to video in real time. (That is still very unlikely.) But what it definitely can't do is do all of that to a game which runs on a 1.6GHz machine, which is the point, and is why all this talk of "but one day server hardware will be good enough" is silly; it will always be beaten by consumer hardware.

    The only way to change that is to have the server hardware somehow deliver some killer feature that consumer hardware can't. But that's not been mentioned as part of this argument, so as far as your description goes, I don't think it'll happen.
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 15:06

  • Murton #57 2 years ago

    YourMessageHere: you're right to question whether or not private running of services is better than public ownership. I personally think it would be better if certain things had never been privatised but that is unfortunately something we will never know.

    I think the issue with the UK providers, and BT specifically, is that they rely too much on the status quo and simply are not willing to invest and innovate. BT doesn't need to innovate because in the bits of the country where Virgin don't operate they have a defacto monopoly, even if you choose another provider it's still a BT line which means BT's ludicrous installation and line rental fees apply. By the same token Virgin doesn't need to innovate because its level of service is just so much better than BTs, it offers a better and more reliable service without a massive cost difference. So until BT upgrades or Virgin expands into new areas of the country they're co-existing in what is effectively a competition free environment and it's Britain that suffers for it.

  • Xerx3s #58 2 years ago

    "As for bandwidth limits, the future of broadband will fundamentally depend on its ability to support the services that vendors want to deliver and consumers want to receive. If the existing model of strict bandwidth limits gets in the way of that, it will simply have to change or the broad band companies that refuse to do so will get left behind by those that agree. "

    It may work like that in some countries but I can assure you that it doesn't work like that in a lot of other countries (over here i.e., the people pay for all infrastructure, which is why it is so good). The capitalistic model isn't implemented everywhere. The bigger issue that I was aiming at was that it might not be possible to keep up-scaling the capacity. There are a good number of reasons ranging from technological to social to financial that stand in the way of such upgrades.

    Don't get me wrong, they will eventually be there but it is doubtful that they will be there when these services kick off or even be there for some time after they kicked off.

  • dr_zoidthrob #59 2 years ago

    Well, isn't he cheery?

  • vansinne #60 2 years ago

    C'mon now, we are talking a bout what happens ten years in the future. We are talking about a business that kind of has a lot of cash. Think big. Think dedicated sattelites.

  • robg #61 2 years ago

    Satellites being the things with the worst latency ever? :)

    "But guys! Think what the speed of light will be in ten years' time!"
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 15:42

  • Markusdragon #62 2 years ago

    Blimey, I still have to buffer in the middle of YouTube videos from time to time...

  • Apologie #63 2 years ago

    OFC they will... there will be only 1 game, the all mighty World of Warcraft _ best game ever made by men period... who cares about consoles after you start playing it.
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 15:45

  • KDR_11k #64 2 years ago

    One has to remember that games industry is a business, so if network based business models are more profitable than existing approach (or a halfway house with fat clients and downloaded or streamed content) then they will prevail and if not they won't.

    What's more important to remember (because it tends to be forgotten all the time) is that the money must ultimately be paid by the customer and no matter how great or cost efficient your tech is, if the customer doesn't buy it you're screwed.

  • MilkYMoO #65 2 years ago

    I'm all for the end of consoles, and if it helps with the end of console fanboys, all the better. The dreamcast was meant to be my last console ever, but I ended up buying a ps2, xbox, 360, wii , ds, psp, and ps3 since then.
    I wan't to play all the best games, but I'm fed up of buying all consoles to do that.
    One set top box under the tv for cloud gaming would be fantastic.
    The amiga will live on forever though.

  • StooMonster #66 2 years ago

    I have a future tech question that will happen before death of all consoles (IMO).

    In a couple of years we're likely to see graphics chips that can do ray-tracing in real-time, and produce equivalent results to most modern animated movies (e.g. works of Pixar).

    What is the difference between the game and the movie? Is the movie simply a "locked" fly by wire version of the game? Or is the game a version of the movie that is expanded with 'interactive' elements?

  • robg #67 2 years ago

    @StooMonster

    My argument would be the same for this. When games look like current Pixar films, Pixar films will look far, far better.

  • StooMonster #68 2 years ago

    MilkYMoO: I'm all for the end of consoles, and if it helps with the end of console fanboys, all the better.

    e.g. my ADSL service is better than your cable modem service.

    So long as there is choice there will be people shouting for one or the other side, having no choice would be the worst possible outcome.

  • StooMonster #69 2 years ago

    KDR_11k: What's more important to remember (because it tends to be forgotten all the time) is that the money must ultimately be paid by the customer and no matter how great or cost efficient your tech is, if the customer doesn't buy it you're screwed.

    Yep ... the "better mouse trap fallacy" :)

  • chrisjm #70 2 years ago

    the cost of delivering ps2 quality graphics and a lower user experience using this sytem says its a long way off if ever.

  • kangarootoo #71 2 years ago

    @notmyrealname

    You know, whenever I am confronted by someone that starts off with an insult, I think "this person already doubts that what they are about to say stands up to scrutiny". But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.


    "when you were comparing the jump that data transfer has made over the years, whilst conveniently forgetting the even bigger jumps hardware (thus games) made at the same time"

    I didn't conveniently forget anything of the sort. I talked about rising transfer speeds, you are correct there. But I never said that bandwidth increases will run parallel to power increases in hardware. Both will increase at different rates. The idea that they increase at the same rate was introduced by you just now.


    "Moore's law is still being upheld to this day"

    Thanks to robg for this link, posted before you wrote your comment.

    [link url=http://blog.bestsoftware4download.com/2009/06/moore%E2%80%9 9s-law-has-been-broken-by-the-latest-intel-atom-chips/ ]http://bl og.bestsoftware4download.com/20...[/link]


    "Double transistors each 2 years. Now come again and say data transfering has done the same, even more (which is required for your prediction to work)."

    Again, I never said they would increase at an equal rate to each other. You said that, a few moments ago.


    "And you are accusing other people of being subjecitve? Really? On a board? Ironyyyyy!"

    I accused everyone of being subjective, including me. My accusation was not that I am being objective and others are not. It was others were stating subjective opinion as objective fact. And irony has one y in it ;)

    Everything you have written is based on your trying to inaccurattely put words in my mouth that were never spoken by me. Or maybe that was the "talking out of my" ass to which you referred? I guess my ass talks directly to you on a private line, without me or anyone else on this thread knowing about it.

  • chrisjm #72 2 years ago

    people assume backwards compatibility of generation 1 & 2 of this cloud but in reality (similar to windows 7 drivers) it just wont be cost effective for most games at some point in the not to distant future, the only way to keep your games alive is to not rely on a company to still be in business years later providing their servers or to expect it to work on unknown not yet invented hardware.

  • Skurmedel #73 2 years ago

    About Spotify, if anybody needs invites I'm the man to go to... I can't get rid of them :(

  • kangarootoo #74 2 years ago

    I'll have one. My girlfriend wants to start using spotify, but I don't have any invites to give. Do they need to be emailed, or can you just pm one to me?

  • freakzilla #75 2 years ago

    Haha! CEOs of EVERY company are so out of touch with reality.

  • Skurmedel #76 2 years ago

    I'll send it to you here. If you subscribe you get new ones every month but I've run out of friends to ask. Half of this country is a member already it seems.

  • freakzilla #77 2 years ago

    I'm sure ISPs would be PISSED. Not gonna happen.

    @Bucko
    I agree, I think of all the things in the world games are among the least suited for cloud computing.
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 17:45

  • Skurmedel #78 2 years ago

    ISPs?

  • oupe #79 2 years ago

    Thin clients on a local network were supposed to revolutionise how businesses ran their computers and save companies thousands. Yet most companies still give employees their own PC's

    Which in turn act as thin clients in either a Citrix or TS environment. This actually has revolutionalised IT management. The reason (mostly old) pc's are used is because there's no reason to swap them for thin clients, you can use any crappy pc.

    Now, who here uses a system like this at work? Anyone? Quite frankly it is easier and cheaper to install Office on every machine and have a central server manage each update and copy changes to files when required

    Good luck with your 1200 users and their stand-alone systems.

    Back on topic
    Of course this will happen eventually but we're talking years/decades here. No one can even begin to speculate about the hardware and bandwidth in ten years time.
    Edited by 2 at 17/12/09 @ 17:53

  • butler` #80 2 years ago

    but speculation is half the fun?

    if technology allows for 1gb/s internet speeds now, in ten years it's going HUAGE!1

    i, like most, don't doubt the tech, but more the service providers and those in charge of the UK's internet infrastructure

  • patchbox360 #81 2 years ago

    this prediction is 3 years to late - i had already bought my 360 at launch

  • old_skool #82 2 years ago

    I just got 2 words : pipe dream

  • Erebu #83 2 years ago

    Yeah and I predict Wada will have to leave SE very soon.

  • AphoticCosmos #84 2 years ago

    Yeeeeees, Wada, and we'll all use flying cars running off of cold fusion to get to our local robotics shop.

  • AOFanboi #85 2 years ago

    <em>Good luck with your 1200 users and their stand-alone systems.</em>

    1985 called, it wants to show you rdist. Wait, that was for Unix, Microsoft didn't believe in a network back then (leaving it to third parties like Novell, Banyan, Sun and IP packet drivers hacked together at univerisities)...

    Back on topic, let us look at the OnLive model. Now, let us say they want to let 16 people play Crysis. Assuming they can get Crytek or the publisher to license the game to them for this purpose, they will end up with a need for 16 DirectX 10-capable gaming rig-equivalent hardware... somewhere. For these 16 players. How much will they charge per month for the service again? And will other players exceeding the number end up in queues waiting to be let in? Games like that are resource intensive, and "the cloud" services are usually billed based on resource use...

    Bound to fail unless they can somehow channel some drug money into the operation...
    Edited by 1 at 17/12/09 @ 22:12

  • VMerken #86 2 years ago

    Whatever the future in video gaming brings, we'll be paying more for less.

  • Razz #87 2 years ago

    Err... o_O Haven't we bee ntalking about this very thing for years?

  • Quixz #88 2 years ago

    Onlive THE END. :D

  • headrush #89 2 years ago

    Oh noes, we're all gonna die!

  • kangarootoo #90 2 years ago

    "Wada, and we'll all use flying cars running off of cold fusion to get to our local robotics shop."

    Hmmm, yeah. Because the model he is talking about is like crazy future technology, and doesn't like EXIST ALREADY or anything. No sir.

    /sarcasm off

  • kangarootoo #91 2 years ago

    "Whatever the future in video gaming brings, we'll be paying more for less."

    Really? Even though we have been doing exactly the opposite of that for the last 30 years?

    I dunno how old you are - I'm in my 30s and I can tell you that games are better value now than they have ever been (generally speaking). I can pay on average about £30 for a newish game these days, and it might give me 20 hours of quality fun. Compare that to 20 years ago, when I would pay £8-12 for a game that could be played from start to finish in an hour.

    And despite rose tinted memories of our youth, there was a huge number of rubbish games about back then. Not to mention there was no online play, no expansion packs, no patches if something shipped with serious bugs.

    Seriously, we have never had it so good.

  • kangarootoo #92 2 years ago

    @AOFanboi

    "Now, let us say they want to let 16 people play Crysis"

    You know it is possible that the people who want to play Crysis and the like will still have their own PC sitting at home. There is no reason that a cloud system can't exist alongside all the other methods of game delivery.

    If we start from the assumption that top end killer graphics are mandatory (and we are talking about the future here, so current benchmarks of what is considered "top end graphics" mean nothing) we are ignoring a huge area of gaming. You might want to play Crysis, and that is fine, but your own gaming preferences shouldn't blind you to what is possible in a global industry.

  • TheJuriel #93 2 years ago

    Cloud gaming... Network speeds and stabilities and server farm costs are nowhere near ready yet. But it's an intriguing idea, because in 10 years time, anything is possible.

    Like zombie apocalypse.
    Edited by 2 at 18/12/09 @ 10:41

  • Hexagon #94 2 years ago

    With Gaikai and OnLive already being in the beta stage, what Wada says might become a reality sooner than anticipated.

  • StooMonster #95 2 years ago

    oef!: Which in turn act as thin clients in either a Citrix or TS environment. This actually has revolutionalised IT management.

    Can only agree with you, I work with organisations with hundreds of thousands of employees each typically across a hundred countries and that is exactly how they manage users computers. As well as easier management -- and improved security, especially if users are not allowed to copy files to local machines and USB ports are disabled too -- it means that users can sit at any desk and go to any office in the world and all their files are immediately accessible.

    Furthermore, also means you can use really old computers, or super cheap PoS ones, so budget saving too.

    Moreover, I use a bunch of interesting internet services that are delivered to me via Citrix clients (e.g. Bloomberg, Reuters, etc.)

  • VMerken #96 2 years ago

    @kangoorootoo
    Misinterpreted my statement. That's okay, I wanted it to be cryptic :).

  • jambo74 #97 2 years ago

    I predict Wada will die one day...so wada i get?

  • AOFanboi #98 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: "You know it is possible that the people who want to play Crysis and the like will still have their own PC sitting at home."

    So what! Crysis is one of the games OnLive claimed could run on their setup, either the dedicated box or on any PC/Mac/whatever. Which is why I picked it as an example. Are you trying to say that you share my skepticism? Good!