The death knoll of consoles and physical media has been ringing since before this current generation of consoles hit the market. It's a long, slow knoll, but it seems that almost everyone is in agreement that its end is coming. Adding his confirmation to the pile is Square Enix CEO Yoichi Wada, who in a recent interview with MCV said his company, along with Sony and Microsoft, are ready for the shift.
“In ten years’ time a lot of what we call ‘console games’ won’t exist,” he said. Elaborating that console makers like Sony and Microsoft have already prepared for the shift and third-parties need to start doing the same. "Somewhere around 2005 the console manufacturers’ strategy shifted,” he said.
“In the past the platform was hardware, but it has switched to the network. A time will come when the hardware isn’t even needed anymore. With that, any kind of terminal becomes a potential platform on which games can be played – that’s exponential growth in the potential of gaming. The potential size of the market is enormous.”
How is Square Enix getting ready for this impending console doom? They're ramping up their production of social and browser games and using the launch of Final Fantasy IV beta as a test for how their online services will work in the future.
Not that we haven't had this debate 50 million times already, but what say you? Prepared to forsake your shiny discs for downloadable games? Ready for a future with a single "console" for your games. I know I'm holding on for dear life to every ounce of physical media I can.
Contest:
8:00 AM on 11.29.2009
| 
No it doesn't, and it won't until you can convince EVERYBODY that physical media is not worth it anymore.
This isn't 10 years away. Maybe 20 or 30 years, if at all.
I hope....
Anyway I do not hear the death knell for physical media and will always seek to buy the physical copies of games I really like if possible. That said, of the games of the last two years their is one I haven't been able to get a hard copy of; Bionic Commando Rearmed, and this bothers me. The future may be looking to spit in my face.
Mwhahahahahhahaahahahahhahahahaha
though ya, i'm skeptical about the death of consoles... i mean, i think MS, Sony and nintendo like money too much, and thus will want to keep it alive
However, if they're just talking about nixing physical media, screw that. I will always prefer going to the store to buy a game over downloading it. Always.
There will always be some company that isn't moving with the times, bringing out an outdated product and making silly money with it. Nintendo, despite your Wii not enthralling me, your business practices give me hope for the future.
It might still be a long while, especially concerning the companies who make a profit out of their consoles, but for games to evole further, they do need to get over those hardware limitations.
Hopefully there will come a time when companies are competing to see which console atually can run most games perfectly. No more of that port stuff.
Demakes on the other hand are extremelly ingenious. But I digress...
If anything, physical media will just get more awesome as time goes on. In Japan, it's already common practice to throw in some stickers or a poster with the purchase of a game. We're getting a little of that in the states with pre-order bonuses, but we could get more as physical media has to compete harder with digital downloads.
Instead of consoles there will be "Networks", but these networks will compete with each-other, guaranteeing the continuation of exclusive games and empty wallets.
DLC is not the future. Games are getting bigger and bigger, and the actual internet infrastructure would have to be upgraded to allow for 50-100 Gig files to be downloaded at a fast, convenient pace for normal consumers. Not to mention disk space will need to be exponentially larger. It's not practical. Hell, a lot of customers still don't even have broadband. The OnLive solution is a lot more likely.
Will this happen? Probably. There's a lot of incentive to cut out the middle man (retailers) and take a big stab at piracy at the same time. That said, the transition won't be instant. Most likely both an OnLive-style service and a traditional console platform will exist side-by-side, but over time, game released the traditional way will start to become like games released for Macs...
I don't see it happening soon. It's just so dangerous.
I see the option becoming more popular and enticing.
No competition = no reason to excel.
You need competition if you want great games, great hardware - great anything. While I guess looking at PC games would give you an idea of a 'one console future', you still have to upgrade your computer to play the latest and greatest games.
I don't like having games exist in digital land anyway. If I had the choice, all of my digital games would be transfered to physical media. While physical media does decay and is prone to damage, its still something that I control. I don't like giving an entity control over my games.
I've probably got at least $100 worth of games on Steam right now. What if Steam decided to close down tomorrow? What if a company found content within one of its games and decided to take it from the network? What if someone steals my account information? What if the banhammer gets laid upon me for some reason?
Gone. All gone. All those games and all that money spend, gone.
Yeah, that's what it's called - OnLive. I was trying to remember.
If OnLive is ever going to become an option, internet connections are going to have to come a LONG way. The world is going to have to start looking a lot more like Ghost in the Shell or Blade Runner before OnLive is a feasible solution.
I'm also still against the idea of OnLive for all the reasons I'm against Digital Distribution. I don't like giving someone else the ability to tell me whether I can play games or not.
They both compliment each other nicely, but one really can't replace the other.
So, unless some world wide changes are made, I cant see this happening in a near future.
Actually, an OnLive-style service is the most likely alternative because it *doesn't* require the same jump in internet connectivity that digital distribution (and storage) of massive games files would. Theoretically, it's just streaming video, which makes it far more easily consumable by the masses.
Onlive is not digital distribution. It's literally game streaming, and it's not that far away.
The physical, digital media we're proclaiming will always have a place has one purpose and one purpose only - storage.
Records are still around, but what about cassettes? Still use 'em? They had no redeeming quality. No one misses the hiss and pop of the cassette. We don't miss VHS. It held on for as long as it could, now DVD is where VHS was. It will hang around longer only because Blu Ray was a forced jump and still a largely unneeded one, but it is just now finally taking hold.
Blu Ray I see as the last great stalling attempt by Sony and the industry as we know it. They made the games and movies larger in quality and storage space just to buy themseleves time. Technology will catch up to them.
PSPGo - questionable as it might be now - is just a forerunner to all this.
As for why I welcome digital distribution - Gamers suck at taking care of physical media. They treat disc cases like candy bar wrappers and instruction booklets like brochures. Every try hunting down a rare PS2 game, only to find it in a generic box with no instructions. Or when you do find a game with proper box and instruction, that the disc looks like it was used as a scratching post?
Stuff like that is why I wait for full DD with open arms.
WHICH ONE IS IT?
Unless they're talking about browser-based WebGL games, no, we're likely not 10 years away from processor/RAM/GPU-lacking, internet-connected "dumb terminal" displays.
Digital distribution and progressive downloads (aka, playing a game as it downloads, rather than having to wait until the entire game has downloaded to start playing) seems very likely but local hardware will do the processing, not servers in the "cloud" a la OnLive.
OnLive sounds nice on paper but it discriminates against those with slow connections, degrading the av quality. Digital distribution only requires a connection and patience; once the game is downloaded, it looks and plays the same regardless of connection speed (at least single player; multiplayer obviously depends on the network).
Take your streaming gaming and shove it.
i typed responses to a few people before reading your comment, and yeah i agree. why debate it. this will mean less overhead/more profit for sony, MS etc so it's going to happen.
tips@destructoid.com doesnt work...
dont wanna troll..
I would never dare to predict what's going to be used or not in 2040.
Often tips just don't make it. They're busy people after all.
You shoulda blogged it.
The resolution matters, as the larger the resolution the larger the size of the stream. Also I have a feeling these companies will set up middleware computers to save money, and they will never force unsupported enhancements... I can't play games without AA, I just can't.
I am sure I am in a small group of people that demand higher settings and higher resolutions, judging by the massive popularirty of low-res console games. I'm just saying I personally can't support the switch, pointless rebellion or no.