“Machines that weren’t game machines before will become game machines”: Take-Two CEO predicts that streaming will help fix the industry’s hardware pricing problem
Take-Two chief executive Strauss Zelnick says increasingly expensive gaming hardware could be offset by reliable, low-latency game streaming within three years. He argues that streaming would let devices not normally considered gaming machines run high-end games, potentially expanding the addressable market and improving access in less affluent regions.
Zelnick said PC versions of console releases can now account for 40–50% of sales, compared with 1–2% two decades ago, reflecting a move towards more open platforms. He believes commercial streaming could increase the effective installed base tenfold, although not Take-Two’s revenues by the same amount; the company currently derives about 80% of revenue from the US, Western Europe and a small number of Asian markets. The article notes that similar predictions have repeatedly fallen short, citing Google Stadia’s closure in 2023 despite continuing services from Nvidia, Amazon, PlayStation and Xbox.
- Take-Two expects viable low-latency game streaming within three years.
- Streaming could reduce dependence on costly gaming hardware.
- Past cloud-gaming promises have not yet displaced downloads.
New here? Start with this
Modern video games are often made for consoles and computers with powerful chips, which can make the hardware expensive. Game streaming runs a game on a remote computer and sends the picture and sound over the internet, so players may be able to use devices that do not have the same processing power.
Strauss Zelnick leads Take-Two Interactive, the publisher behind games including Grand Theft Auto and NBA 2K. He says reliable streaming could let more people play demanding games without buying a dedicated console or gaming PC, and points to the growing share of sales from PC versions as a sign that gaming is reaching more types of devices.
Streaming services have had mixed results: Google Stadia shut down in 2023, while services from Nvidia, Amazon, PlayStation and Xbox continue. Wider access could matter to game publishers seeking more players, though it would not necessarily mean the same increase in sales, and dependable, low-delay internet remains important.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Technology has materially improved since streaming's previous setbacks, with multiple major platforms now operating successfully and sustained industry investment suggesting this iteration differs from past failures. PC gaming's growth to 40-50% of console sales demonstrates genuine consumer willingness to adopt less hardware-centric gaming approaches, whilst recent advances in latency, compression and infrastructure suggest streaming's technical obstacles are becoming genuinely surmountable. The expansion of affordable gaming access in emerging markets remains economically logical, and even Zelnick's modest expectation that this won't translate to full revenue proportionality shows realistic understanding of limitations.
The case against
Stadia's expensive collapse despite Google's substantial resources demonstrates that streaming faces fundamental obstacles transcending mere technology—inadequate global infrastructure, persistent consumer preferences for ownership and local control, and widespread ISP limitations remain largely unresolved. The gaming industry has repeatedly overpromised on streaming's transformative potential across decades, and similar predictions of massive market expansion have consistently failed to materialise as estimated. Zelnick's tenfold installed-base claim lacks empirical support and follows a well-established pattern of streaming predictions systematically underestimating practical barriers.