Microsoft have been at the forefront of cloud gaming and even though nothing has been practically implemented, they have showcased their technology and have stated in the past that several effects can be improved in their games.
The day that happens it means that we will be forced to by "always online, cannot work without an internet connection, cannot play single player games without an internet connection" games and systems. This is where they are trying to push us, this is when they will remove our rights. How long before gamers see that this is NOT a good thing? I've said it before and I'll say it again, I will not support gaming if it reaches this stage.
yup , cloud gaming is a fancy word for online drm. when they'll shut down servers and stop supporting said games, you can kiss em good bye.
Wich means you can still play the game offline at least . There is an ocean of difference between eventually dropping mp support for a game no longer popular , and plainly "preventing" a game from ever working again . A good example of that is Tales of Phantasia on mobile platforms , a frickin' offline jrpg . They made it in such a twisted way , that with the servers out of commission ... you can't play the game at all . And then logically they even removed the game from the stores . At least it was free , but you can see the kind of stuff being tested there And yet people argue about stupid things like "who doesnt have the net this day and age ?" . They dont see farther ahead , and how it's easy to abuse such dependancies and enforce any conditions on games and gamers . Nor how dependant it makes some games not offering any benefits from the forced online (such as Diablo 3) .. when there are servers issues , attacks etc
Shloob , "Game Worlds Are Going To Become So Large That They Can Only Be Stored In Cloud". How long should they keep these on the cloud? You bet you're gonna have to rely on them to play SP. What happen to your games then? To your console you sunk money into? People love to go back to oldies from time to time , i still play Mario Bros on NES when friends come over and we feel like going on the nostalgic road.
That is just bull. With time worlds will get bigger, true, but aren't machines getting bigger and better with the time? I remember when I was a kid and my computer only had 120Mbits of disk storage. By today standarts that's nothing, but in that time it was huge.
"Microsoft have been at the forefront of cloud gaming..." One can't help but laugh at this. Since when??
Still mad they shutdown MAG servers. A MP ONLY game mind you.
Comcast says hi! That game is going to use the cloud, after the company pays the ISP first. They keep talking about the cloud and yet the basic problem hasn't been solved about keeping the internet open.
I still have digital games from about 8 or 9 years ago...what are you guys talking about?? They will not just turn off access to a game, online maybe, but they will not just turn off access to a game that you paid for. Where do you guys get this notion from?
"They will not just turn off access to a game, online maybe, but they will not just turn off access to a game that you paid for" You were just given an example of this precisely happening . And no it's not even the sole and first time . Of course even a solo game relying on any online function to run at all , will be shut down the moment its server go offline . And of course the wording of the purchase will be in a tos/eula and a way you'd not own the game but an access license to it , in such cases . ANd naturally they'd remove the game from download if it's down , to avoid any issues . The moment it happens to a popular enough game , there will be a riot , but the groundwork for it is already there .. all it needs is a cynical EA , Ubi , Square , Capcom etc
It's as simple as giving you a license key to download those old games you paid for in some cases, sort of how they have sites where you can download and play tons of retro games on your pc. Online only games are brought with the understanding that you won't have them for eternity. I mean just go back and look at all those live arcade and psn digital downloads, do you really expect to play them forever, however I do forsee these companies establishing a completely seperate online service to give us access to game once they get very old and no longer supported. Speaking for myself I'll take a fully cloud enabled megaton AAA online only game that offers ever changing locations, sophisticated AI, realtime destruction, weather and other on the fly updates for $60 that YES will have server support for only 5yrs or as long as the community plays vs the same game for $60 minus these cloud benefits offline and available to me forever. I dont see why people see it as "Dont push forward because *I* dont want it", or lecturing those interested as if we are to dumb to know whats good for us, hey why don't you just refuse to buy that type of game no different than how WOW type games don't interest me but who are you or me to say they shouldn't exist???..to each his own I just find some of the cocepts of a more robust ever changing game very interesting, if a dev thinks it will give him more creative freedom, I say go for it. I mean as I think about my gaming habits now, I haven't touched my 360 or ps3 in ages, I tell myself "no keep it, just in case", but realistically I won't, hell I barely have time to play my X1. I'm not too nostalgic unless there's a quality remake to give me a reason to be, otherwise I by the time that cloud megaton is going offline I'll be long since move on to the next big experience.
@Melman I can't download a digital copy of R-Type I brought on the PS3 when it first came out. Despite having paid for it, it's no longer available. I can get a different version if I want to spend another $5. Games for Windows(pretty big news last year) recently took down their entire servers, and anyone who didn't download the patches to allow the games to play without authentication are SOL unless they want to torrent the program, which most people can't actually do. There are actually quite a few games and apps on iOS or google app store that are no longer available to download regardless of if they are purchased or not, and often times the free ones with downloadable content you simply lose all access to any money spent on them. Then of course there is the issue of when things are taken off of these services, they are no longer legally available. Doesn't matter if you want to pay to play them, you just can't legally. That doesn't seem like a really bright future to me. Then of course, at any time, servers can be shut down because they aren't profitable enough to maintain(Games for Windows for instance). Apple could one day if they stop being popular. XBL could if MS decides to drop out of the console business. Then what? Where would you download all your purchases from then? I guess we can take solace in the fact that the Library of Congress started archiving games digitally back in 2006, and we can always hope that the underground ROM/ISO sites will not get busted by authorities so we can keep in touch with our gaming roots...something a lot of gamers seem to be willing to give up in the name of allowing corporations control our purchases and playing habits.
to the mindless disagreers to my previous comment. what is the thing that has put MS at the FOREFRONT of cloud gaming as the matter of speaking? drivatar?
Rather depends. In a scenario where being connected actually enhances a game and makes new things possible I think most people will embrace it. If connectivity is artificially forced with no easily perceivable benefit to the player, people will rage hard (see Diablo 3 requirement, Xbox announce).
Couldn't have put it better myself. If it's relevant to the game then it's worthwhile. No one complains about games like WoW where it's reliant on being online.
I agree with you overall, but all this overlooks the fact that many people don't even log onto the internet to play games. The 360 had less than half it's install base online, and probably less than that with access to online gaming. Not sure what the PS3 numbers were. PC is doing OK here, but there are still plenty of people who buy games without fast internet connection, and they won't be ignored. Just go to wal-mart or Best Buy and look at their PC section. Those games are there because their target audience doesn't log into the net to play. Even EA has a section for their Sims products, so even EA knows that it can't screw over all it's customers(although they sure would love to). Think Sony stated that around 95% of all PS4 owners had connected their PS4, but notice they didn't give exact numbers on how many were actually playing games online. I'm not saying that 10-20 years from now things won't be different with the number of people connecting, but with more people connecting it means the infrastructure just isn't going to be able to keep up. It can barely keep up now, and we're still pretty much using the same backbone that we used 10-15 years ago. Here's an interesting article on this http://www.theguardian.com/... On other point, the reason we don't have cheaper faster internet here in the US is because the infrastructure just can't cope with it. The uptake in streaming and portable always connected devices is jamming the bandwidth severely. Google Fiber may relieve some of this, but other companies like Verizon and AT&T are delaying the implementation of alternative ways to free up bandwidth because it's too expensive compared to what they can make because competition has driven prices down so low(hard to believe given what they charge I know). Because of this, Google fiber can't be the only answer, because despite Google's massive cash reserves, they can't lay it all out to provide the public with fast free internet, and eventually, they'll hit bandwidth problems as well. It's really not until the governments in a country step and and either do it themselves, or give grants to get it done, where it will happen, and I don't see that happening here in the US unless the government gets control over the net like they want.
Bye then... but for real, It's going to happen and I don't mind all digital especially if it's cheaper. I think it will be until next gen that we see anything you won't support happen.
Yeah, we're so lucky to have people like you that will encourage sacrificing your rights to save a couple extra bucks.
Because digital versions of games on consoles are cheaper now right? What makes you think they will do anything but raise prices. Just think, the only place I will be able to get my game is psn or Xbox live. No competition means prices will be higher for longer.
I would agree if digital was cheaper but it isn't, it's more expensive. It certainly should be cheaper, after all the producers save on production costs and shipping. That's quite a big deal. Sony and MS etc. need to understand this. People need to have a reason to go digital, other than it being the only option.
Then don't play those games that require you to be online at all times. I for one don't mind it all.
I can't play half the games on android with out a cellular connection, including ones that make no sense like Madden.
How often do you boot up your ps4 and xbox one or PC and are not connected to the internt?!? People opt to be connected anyways all the time. So I think people like you just dont want to be told they have to be connected even though they are going to be anyways. Always online requirement will push gaming forward. Embrace the future already.
"Always online requirement will push gaming forward" Do tell us how. Please I want to know. I'll get my retorts out of the way early. Better AI? sure, most developers don't invest the money or time on making good AI. Game AI is relatively simple in fact if you know how these things are programmed, and I don't see the cloud changing that. Graphics? How is better graphics pushing games forward? I see a lot of X1 fans saying it's about the game play, and not the graphics. Lot of Nintendo owners feel the same. Most PS4 owners feel similar, as they seem to be rather excited over some of the indies which aren't exactly graphical powerhouses. Larger worlds? Yeah, because we see a huge trend in games becoming massively bigger and not smaller. Larger worlds = more money spent on making them. Most publishers are going with tighter more detailed scenes that pack things into what's available. Persistent worlds? Sure that's great for online games, or games with online components. But stored values do this just fine for single player games, and isn't really pushing gaming forward as this kind of thing has been around for over 15 years. Also in answer to your question, I automatically log in on my PS3 and PS4 because it's just what it is. I do not automatically go in and play games online though, because I don't want to.
I didnt say you always play online games, im saying that you are always connected regardles of what type of game experience you are having. Everyone online by default would enhance community, bringing everyone much closer as well as possibilities for all those things you mentioned with time rainslacker.
So you believe that features that have nothing to do with games directly will push gaming forward? Social connectivity is already here. It's been around for a while. Not everyone chooses to use it, and requiring people to do so is not the future, it's forced compliance. Some people just want to play a game and not be bothered. Of course all those things will come with time. But it doesn't require being connected to do. AI algorithms today are practically the same as they were in the PS2 days. Graphics require more memory and assets, things that are directly contradictory to an online connection which will always be slower than a local bus. Larger worlds is pointless, as the larger a world gets the harder it is to play...all games require structure. And persistent worlds are an online feature, which are available today...and some people don't care about it...so again, it's forced compliance. Anyhow, I don't believe that bringing the world together through forced connectivity is a good thing. Socializing should always be a choice, and people that want to game without all the overhead should be able to. But to be fair, I'm one of those people that believe that people while more socially connected today, are actually less capable of personal social interaction. I also personally don't care what other people are doing while I'm playing an RPG, nor do I care to have it interrupted unless it's an MMO. I respect your opinion on it, and admire your optimism on how social others can be, but I just don't see it really enhancing gaming any more than it already does for those that don't want to embrace the future.
Well said rainslacker and bubble up.
"Yeah, we're so lucky to have people like you that will encourage sacrificing your rights to save a couple extra bucks." And what will you do about it johndoe? Easy to point the finger at others and pretend you are a crusader for the common man but what are you actually going to do to stop the advancement of this technology? Did you stop DLC, Paid Online and other "non-friendly" anti consumer practices or did you complain about it by posting on N4G for a week then "got over it".
What this comment entails isn't even accurate. If a game world has to be streamed, it still has to be stored locally to be displayed, so it wouldn't really matter whether that info comes from local or cloud storage, and local storage will always be significantly faster. What this guy is talking about is true in the sense of a single player that has a persistent open world, but even then, local storage is still significantly faster. This means to play it with any sort of meaningful increase in the larger size, the entire game needs to be played on the server, like what is being done with Gaikai. What this means is a tremendous amount of resources on the server side, and huge amounts of bandwidth being consumed for games, at a time when bandwidth limits are already stretched with no sign that it will be lightened or the backbone improved anytime soon. In the end, games while becoming larger in resources, are actually becoming smaller in content. Open world games are becoming more linear. New techniques and tricks in developing a scene are becoming so complex, that there isn't going to be massive improvement by just moving it to the cloud. Gaming will have a local option for a very long time to come, so no need to worry about having to drop out of gaming. Moving gaming to the cloud is moving games to be a service, and if the service provides less benefits than it already does for local games, then people aren't going to lap it up, as witnessed by the X1 reveal and subsequent controversy.
Good or bad thing this likely won't become the norm until everyone has blistering internet speeds so its not really much to worry about until then. Physical discs and such should still exist for quite awhile. They are pushing Digital because its cheaper for them to produce and they earn back more profit. That is their only concern.
Don't they call those "MMO"s? But seriously, this is what pisses me off about MS and their "idea" of cloud gaming. That many are praising them for something yet delivered. Its the "potential" of Kinect all over again.
Oh ye of little faith. .
well only a god could warrant following something without any proofs and displays . And MS sure aint gods
@Baka-akaB - Lets leave laughable concepts of Religion off of this forum shall me. You instantly lose any and all credibility in a discussion the second you god or jesus up a discussion. Thats said, cloud has potential and it's in it's infancy. Those who find it hard to comprehend the scale of this technology just need to give it more time. To be honest it's far to early to be having a p!ss!ng contest over this from either camp.
Dude that was a jest , far from me to enter a debate about any religion
Who started with "Oh ye of little faith"? Hell. Between this, which was a majorly promoted feature of the console which needs years post release to deliver, and the DRM issue, MS has only been saying "trust us".
...and this is what pisses me off about the anti-Microsoft people: They already have begun to deliver on cloud gaming: Drivatar in Forza and cloud servers in Titanfall They have also announced that the upcoming Crackdown 3 game will utlize the cloud to enhance destructible environments (as seen in a DX12 tech demo a few months back). If rumors are true about the upcoming Gears of War game, minds will be blown. But I'm sure none of this will matter since it seems your mind is already made up. Also pretty safe to assume that you don't own an XBox or have ever tried Kinect. Motion gamming is dead, but freaking Kinect rocks.
They say that stuff Is there working in the cloud but it's a lie they really just have it running in the normal servers running the game. The cloud is a joke and will be downfall of gaming well no that's wrong ios or android will take down gaming lol. Also the kinect is awesome because it's the only way to get around the terrible ui on xb1 I hate the cluttered mess of that ui -_-
It's beyond me how you have this many bubbles considering the amount of trolling on MS articles you do. Get a frigging life.
its N4G AKA Sonyfanboyland is this really a surprise?
I don't know what you all think the cloud is... but it IS just normal servers, running server side stuff.. This is true, however the power of Microsofts cloud infrastructure is that they have millions of server nodes around the world, allowing fast and scalable systems to deliver content. Those who say it's just a server are CORRECT. But it's a scalable server that can be deployed worldwide in varied quantities, ramped up when the game is busy, and ramped down when not. Cloud tech exists, is in active use all over, including on XBOX ONE. Those who 'doubt the power of the cloud' are just retards who understand nothing of what or how the cloud will do. TL;DR; Cloud is just servers, millions and millions of configurable, scalable servers.
No one is praising, only the sony camp puts more on it than what is truly being said. What is happening is people are excited and anticipating from what was shown in a demo and actually told is coming. It is already a fact that this tech will be in Crackdown 3 and the company behind it has already stated it works. As GAMERS this tech is exciting and why shouldn't it be? If this works this has the potential to create bigger and better worlds and AI for games. As a gamer don't you wan to see this or would you rather get fed the same old type of games we have been getting for the past decade?
"As a gamer don't you wan to see this or would you rather get fed the same old type of games we have been getting for the past decade?" As a gamer and consumer I want to buy a total, enclosed, product. I don't want to pay additional fees or ongoing subscriptions for basic use, much less be dependent on external support. Not with a single player game.
Yes one day they will, but not this generation! I do find it funny how Microsoft say this but only last gen said DVD was plenty and Blu-ray was not needed.
Last gen DVD was plenty and blu-ray was not needed. The 360 was quite successful.
Please tell me you're freaking joking with this statement??
The 360 failed for lack of a Blu-ray drive did it? I must have missed that. In fact I thought the year headstart and huge price advantage worked out in it's favour. Incidentally from a gaming point of view Blu-ray is still completely unnecessary. The Xbox plays games from the hard drive regardless, and you'd get the exact same end result if it shipped on DVDs. Just to be sure I'm not crazy about Blu-ray being non-essential, let me just consult the interwebs to confirm how many PC games have shipped on Blu-ray discs. If I find some good examples that validate your theory I'll come back to apologise. Probably don't hold your breath though.
Please tell me how Blu-ray made gaming better last gen. Was it the incredibly long load times or the duplicated data needed to make the games playable? MGS couldn't be done on 360 due to it's massive blu-ray footprint which needed a 50 gig blu-ray disc. It would have taken 7 DVD's according to Kojima! Oddly the patch that enabled a full install showed the actual game footprint was 9 gigs. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... http://metal-gear.net/2012/...
Kojima mostly said he wanted to use uncompressed audio and cutscenes . Hence the need of plenty dvds , had it come to 360 . He never alluded to the game itself using the whole bluray , that was fanboys speculations
What? No. Blu-ray needed? Not necessarily. But, did some games suffer from no Blu-ray? Oh, yes. MGS4 didn't even attempt DVD. GTA4 cut content because not every 360 had a harddrive, Blu-ray could have saved this. Lost Planet 2 cut content because of 360's DVD size. Many games had multiple discs on 360. And, some cut content just to save money and fit on one disc. Same exact end result? What? Some of the games that took advantage of Blu-ray would have easily filled up early console HDD's. It's better now. But, do you really want to install a 50GB+ game? Let alone downloading it from the store? That's not an easy purchase for the average consumer. I could do 50GB's and download it in 3 hours tops. Most don't have that luxury, patience, and would rather have the free space because a disc would would just fine. Blu-ray allows more uncompressed and total amount of content possible without filling hard drive space. Is that a problem? All PC games are installed to hard drives. Blu-ray is irrelevant because of that. On a console where it is meant to be plugin and play it is far different. If you want the PC experience then you have a PC. Use it. Don't assume consoles would have success of a non-console method. Consoles are still more popular for those reasons. Right. Because, the rush to the market, billions paid for the faulty console, billions in marketing and trying to bully their way into the market, and pushing terrible policies worked out for them. What a success.
I hate to break it to you, but Blu-ray based games required installs also. Blu-ray was an absolute failure on the PS3. It was 100% about Sony wanting to beat HD-DVD for the home movie market. They sacrificed console marketshare to do it. Most of a Blu-rays footprint consisted of duplicated data to reduce seek times. With the new generation of consoles, both are requiring games to use a hybrid Blu-ray/HDD install solution. Blu-ray on it's own is not possible for todays games.
Lol. Yeah DVD was plenty when you had one game on 3 discs.
A game on 3 DVDs? And it worked? So.... they successfully shipped a big game without having a Blu-ray drive? You raise an interesting point, but I don't think it supports your argument.
@Death It doesnt change the fact that for a few games , content had to be cut on all versions , because of the 360 using dvds instead of blray , and devs obviously vying for multiplatform parity . Of course , it was only a few games , and of course people are exagerating the benefits of bluray on ps3 , some of those game would have ran into other technical issues with the specs of either consoles at the time ... but noneless more space to store data is always going to be welcomed and used eventually .
@Death This was much of the time because of developer laziness. Blu-ray reads significantly faster than DVD at a more consistent rate. This is a fact. The only problem is developers are expected to organize data better. Games that took advantage of it had little to no loading screens while 360 still had the loading screens of games on past consoles. Blu-ray is more than capable of todays games. Every PS3 came with a hard drive. Not every 360 came with a hard drive, or only had a small usb drive for storage. Developers strayed away from installs on 360 to reach as many 360 owners as possible. Some of the installs were because developers weren't experienced with PS3 hardware or organizing content on Blu-ray. HDD's are just better for games but Blu-ray is extremely important to the console market, whereas PC's are all about installing things on a harddrive first.
Blu-Ray was convenient towards the end of the generation, but it certainly wasn't needed... Most games fit perfectly on DVDs..., and we still are seeing big last gen releases that will fit on DVD. The only people who needed it was Sony, who used the console as a way to ensure the success of the Blu-Ray over HD-DVD
Exactly, blu-ray was really only wanted/needed a PS3 to ensure they helped win the media format over HD-DVD and one could argue that Blu-ray has never really taken off as a format itself especially compared to that of the DVD, VHS, or CD. Streaming has cut really deep into that market. But I bought a PS3 partly for being the best blu-ray player out there as I'm a huge movie guy.
It was actually all very interesting, but it's kinda hard to discuss here without getting mad fanboy backlash. Sony were hell bent on getting a stake in a dominant media format for years. Betamax, Digital audio tape, Minidisc, UMD, Blu-ray. With the PS3 they basically exploited their most loyal fanbase to ensure they finally got success. It put a huge overhead on the console and made it ship a year later than it's rival. It basically cost Sony a hell of a big chuck of that loyal audience. Today the format is barely treading water. DVDs are still dominant, streams and downloads are encroaching heavily on the demand for physical formats. There are serious doubts as to whether the blu-ray format will even make the transition to 4k movies or whether it'll be a wasted investment in an obsolete medium. And it just never took off as a data storage format at all. Still my preferred way to watch movies though, until downloads/streams include the same or better audio and visual quality.
At the time when they said BR wasn't needed they also said HDMI and internal wifi weren't needed. Later not only released 360 models with HDMI and wifi, then later still the slim, but also the HD-DVD add on in a futile gesture of offering "choice". Nevermind the 2-3 major system updates they did to improve regular DVD performance. Which bricked a few of their consoles.
Blu-ray wasn't needed. It's not that they simply said it, in the time frame the PS3 was out games weren't larger, more detailed, and in "full HD" like Sony stated. We now have the benefit of hindsight or history to show it wasn't needed. HDMI is awesome. In 2005 not many HDTV's benefited from the standard though. Over time it became the industry standard and was added in. While Microsoft was adding features to their consoles, Sony was removing them from theirs. I love my launch 60 gig and wouldn't trade it for anything. You are seriously complaining about "major" system updates that improved performance and added features? That's a new twist even for you. Thank god Sony never bricked consoles with an update. http://www.ign.com/articles...
Didn't say HDMI wasn't "awesome". Said MS lacked the foresight to immediately implement it, which then imposed and limited early 360 owners. Made them buy new systems with HDMI, just like the updates which compensated for growing deficiencies in DVD and broke some consoles. How is "BR wasn't needed" still valid when the 360 had to compensate to the degrees it, and still held back the general industry? BR might not have been needed on the system but something other than DVD certainly was.
Blu-Ray itself wasn't needed, but larger and faster storage was. It's just silly for anyone to say that a larger and faster format isn't necessary after a generation that lasted 6 years(PS2/Xbox). Every generation has had an increase in capacity and speed. Every developer says "MORE". By the end of the PS2 cycle, games were often coming out on dual-layer discs filled to capacity, and sometimes with multiple discs, and they weren't even HD. When moving to a new generation where textures were 4-8X larger than the prior, sound files used anywhere from 2-16X the prior gens space, game assets themselves quadrupled in size just because of becoming more detailed, and required game assets for a scene at least tripled, it's just dumb to say that more space wasn't needed. Thank God for compression is all I can say. DVD's held back gaming last gen because of this. People only defend it because they want to defend MS. MS went with DVD's because they wanted to beat Sony to market for the next gen, and their fallout with NVidia forced their hand where they couldn't wait for the costs to come down enough to include a high capacity format. When you see what some PS3 exclusives were able to achieve with the Blu-Ray format, it just doesn't make sense that people would say "DVD is fine". If it was fine then it should have been fine for this gen. But it isn't.
Here we go again...Microsoft Speak. Cloud this and cloud that. Did they patent the word or something? Are they getting kickbacks every time they use this new PR term? Bro! Show me why the cloud is some important to gaming and you wont have to keep mindfuqing me. "one day it will be of use..." LOL "in the foreseeable future..." "We imagine..." "Things will be..." Who are these guys psychics?
Is it a knee jerk reaction to go full retard with anti MS comments every time a Sony fanboy sees the term "cloud"?
Gaikai/PSNow is also "cloud" based. Remote play is also "cloud" based. It's nothing new, just the marketing way of talking about server/client based computing. MMO's are server or cloud based. As games get more detailed and larger they are starting to resemble MMO's in size and scope. This is why Microsoft said they are moving cloud based.
But none of those things is proposing server-side calculations that must then be synced with local calculations(outside of controller input). As games get larger and more detailed, so is the local hardware improving to be able to render those games without the need for the cloud. And that local hardware will ALWAYS be more reliable, because there's no need for reliance on anything but the hardware in order to run the game. The more factors and complications you add, the more likely the chance of failures or problems. Of course, there's still the issue of the world not having sufficient enough internet infrastructure to allow this to happen. You'd think Microsoft would know that... but then, maybe those parts of the world would just be "tier 2" to them.
and that day they will have higher capacity storage mediums which reads and writes at a faster rate than BR discs/drives what kinda sh!tty article is this
By next gen, 50-100GB SSD's that could be used for cartridges will probably cost all of $2-3 to manufacture. Some optical format will likely be up to 500GB's of space allowing for 4K-3D graphics with no issue(GPU permitting), and will likely cost less than $1 to manufacture and throw in a box. Even now, Blu-Ray can theoretically go up to 200GB's, with people working on larger capacities. But some new faster format may be preferable. By next gen, we'll still be no the same slow ass unreliable internet that most of us use every day. Because I hate to say it, even if you have 5Mb speed, it's still slow compared to what it could be. But the internet backbone isn't going to be better in 6-7 years, and consoles all going to streaming or massive amounts of cloud services is only going to strain it further. It's a sad truth that many "Digital is the future" proponents conveniently ignore.