I picked Cloud, Subscription, Console & PC (though technically the other two can count...you need a TV to see what the console puts out, right?
)
[CLOUD]
I don't think this is going to be the industry shift some people hype it up to be. Cloud, like subscription gaming, will probably continue to serve a supportive role rather than a main role in how people game. Its two biggest use-cases on the customer side are probably going to be for game demos (that you can stream, to try a game out, before deciding if you want to buy it digitally or physically), and to do some cloud-based backend logic & graphics rendering to stream results back to the client system, preferably in real-time. That way, games can have a touch more visual fidelity or physics going on beyond what the base console may be able to do if it had to render it all locally.
For developers, I think the cloud's going to be a big factor in enabling more decentralized development schedules and workflows, better sharing of tools and assets, communication, and allow for potentially more global development teams. I can also see AI programming and data creation models being powered through cloud networks and used by teams to help in the process of creating games more quickly and efficiently.
[SUBSCRIPTIONS]
Like cloud, I don't see it having a big transformative effect on how us regular customers engage with games in terms of accessing content. The budgets for AAA marquee games are just too big to have a subscription service absorb all of the costs, especially if it's from a publisher making multiple such games a given year. However, I think it might be a perfect solution for backlog libraries of content.
That said, platform holders have to be careful to what frequency they bring titles to sub services, because if it's too frequent, too soon, they can condition customers to wait until a new game "inevitably" lands in the service. Even if the service has no loopholes that can lower the ARPU significantly, that is a risky and potentially losing strategy long-term in regards to revenue, let alone if your service has a lot of options where customers can basically get it for super-cheap or free, multiple times. At that point, your entire content pipeline is being offered like a charity, but you're a business. And most companies don't have the pockets to sustain that without bleeding so much cash they are forced to downscale or shutter.
But, as a backlog for vault content? Subscription services can work great. And for helping enable the existence of smaller AA-type or indie games that may not be able to find their own audiences, I think subscription services can work well too. Though, truthfully, even a lot of those games would be just fine with demo slices in said services, then let those games sell in full directly to customers before considering to bring them into the service once they've saturated their direct sales revenue potential.
[CONSOLES]
These are here to stay. We've still got a ways to go before really reaching a point where graphics are virtually indistinguishable from real-life, and there are still many advances that can be made WRT physics and AI in games, too. What's more, for me personally I think the immersion aspect is only now starting to be explored, and when VR/AR is able to be "good enough" and at least initially offered at an entry-level price (I'd say, to where you can provide a headset with 1440p - 2K 90 Hz refresh per eye, 4 DOF, full-color passthrough camera at a $100 MSRP), we can see immersion at that level become mainstream.
Feels like we've got at least one, maybe two, more console generations where tech itself can advance and provide readily noticeable boosts locally, before I'd say gaming technology (processing, engine maturity/features, controls, sensory immersion, QoL etc.) reaches a point where even lower-end hardware is "good enough". When companies other than Sony, Microsoft & Nintendo can basically make boxes with solid baseline console-like specs and feature performance at mass-market prices, that's when maybe the idea of "consoles" coming from 2 or 3 specific manufacturers might go away.
But I can also only see that happening when the Big 3 decide they've reached a point where adhering to certain aspects of the traditional console business model (i.e selling hardware at subsidized losses, having a licensing fee to make content for their hardware, selling games as exclusives on their hardware or their software service platforms, etc.) are not profitable or sustainable for them long-term. That would basically mean them treating their consoles more like PC gaming boxes or "players", but I don't see that happening if on the PC side, Microsoft specifically still have a stranglehold on the OS and (somewhat) game API markets, because that would just be Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Google etc. ceding control to Microsoft.
Things would have to be way more OS-agnostic on the PC side when it comes to gaming, for that to even start happening. So, I don't think a future where game consoles basically become like DVD players in their role, being able to play every game from every publisher at virtually any spec level, is going to happen for some decades. I just think it would require more compromises on control than pretty much any of these companies would be willing to make.
[PC]
Basically just gave the reasons why, above. At least, that's on the business side of things. For customers, I think we're going to see more 3P console games start coming to PC, in some increases cases Day 1. I can see Nintendo eventually testing the waters with PC ports of older games, say some N64, SNES or Gamecube titles, particularly ones that might've done well critically but not commercially back in the day. For example, say they wanted to do an Eternal Darkness remake; I can easily see them making that a Switch 2 & PC type of game, maybe the PC version comes a year later or something but that's the type of game I feel Nintendo could cater to the PC audience with, but without stepping on their own console audience's toes to do so.
I do see Sony bringing more of their games to PC as well but in either one or two ways. Some of the recent sales of PC ports haven't been great from what I've seen, and I think that may lead Sony to reconsider their porting strategy. A lot of the live-service games, will still be coming to PC and Day 1 in at least most of those cases for certain. But I can see them skipping on bringing larger marquee games like GOW or Spiderman to the PC platform in the future. Those games have strong selling power on PlayStation consoles; the hardware flow is finally good again, why kneecap it?
It seems like to me, the smaller, more creative AA-style games can do pretty well on PC/Steam, and might cater more to that type of audience. We're sort of seeing it right now with Hi-Fi Rush, although that's a MS/Bethesda game. Personally if I were Sony, I'd leave the marquee single-player games like GOW, Ghosts, Spiderman, TLOU etc. on console (or if doing a PC port, wait at least 3 or so years and at that point, can probably backlog the game into PS+ (the PS5 version) and offer the PC upgrades on console for a $10 upgrade fee), and instead prioritize smaller indie and AA-style 1P content and live-service games for the PC/Steam market. If they make a Dreams 2, for example, that would probably be a nice PS5/PC Day 1 type of game. Or another Little Big Planet. If Sony bothered to bring back some of their legacy IP like Parappa/UmJammer, Tomba!, Tearaway, Echochorme etc. then those could solid PC offerings alongside PS and mobile.
But..that's if Sony
don't plan on doing their own storefront for PC. If they
are, then I think those plans could change significantly. If they can monetize the storefront (through PS+ subs and some type of ad/affiliate-based 'Free' model), make it seamless between PS console and PC in terms of features, trophies, shared perks etc., have some type of pricing discount for double-dippers (maybe tied to PS Rewards), and ensure that marquee AAA games always target PS5/PS6 regardless what PC settings they'd need to run on that platform (i.e say Uncharted 5 needs a 4080 minimum to run, then so be it), then I can see all 1P games being Day 1 on console & PC, some even Day 1 between those & mobile, All depends on the specific game. If they are considering that strategy, though, then I think Sony are several years away from implementing it.
I think it'd be until PS6 gen before they did it, and the PC would basically be a "virtual platform" in that sense. If you don't want to worry about your PC meeting the minimum specs tho, you can get a console. If you still want PC, Sony still gets the full cut on any 1P software purchased through the storefront, their cut of 3P sales on the storefront, PS+ revenue on PC (paid & free tiers), etc. They would definitely have to scale back on Steam, though, which would be a challenge. Not an insurmountable one, though; some people like to complain that PC gamers won't "tolerate" buying their games anywhere else but, if the audience is that stubborn, why cater to them? Put up a good storefront with quality perks and services, great games, and if that person wants to play them, they have to become a customer of yours. It's that simple, just business.
[MOBILE]
This one's pretty easy to predict; we're going to see more platform holders make games based on their IP specifically for the mobile market. Nintendo and Sony are already doing it, and have for a while, but I can see them expanding with more such efforts. Microsoft HAD some of these games, but shuttered them; now they want ABK to get access to that Candy Crush revenue.
At least for Sony, and maybe Microsoft, I can also see mobile acting as a means of justifying reinvestments into smaller and mid-sized AA-type games. There is some notable crossover between the audience for that on mobile, Steam, and console. Collectively, that audience is big enough to justify those games on small/moderate budgets and getting healthy profit returns on them.
Mobile will also factor a lot into the cloud & subscription side of things; perhaps for mobile audiences, those become the main means of consuming gaming content. But again, I think it's going to be limited to non-AAA games. I also think it'll have to be with games that are friendly to mobile audiences; just mapping console controller button schemes to a virtual touch button setup won't do, because that just makes everything more convoluted. The games have to inherently work well with limited buttons & swipe/motion controls, or at least have the foresight during development to accommodate that setup.
[TV]
Not really too noteworthy IMO. It's just another access point for gaming content via the cloud or through a subscription service. I can see Sony & Microsoft making their own TVs specifically designed with gaming in mind; Sony's already doing this with the InZone monitors, mostly.
But I mean, more so in the way where Sony & Microsoft may design such monitors and bundle them with the console in a premium SKU. Monitors specifically designed for absolute low-latency gaming, perfect color balance, audio output, tons of controls for the image quality, sync, refresh options, maybe even touch capacity, monitor tilt options and more. I can't picture that type of SKU with even a smaller TV of that type & console being cheap (probably well over $1,000), but some subset of the hardcore would love it.
I can't see it happening with the current consoles though; it is probably something with 10th-gen, because I think they'll have more horsepower to provide much higher refreshes than 120 Hz at Full HD (and above) native resolutions (plus they'll have advanced image upscaling tech in them, making the need for native resolutions that much more a non-requirement).
