Should everyone have equal access to games regardless of the hardware they can afford?
Yes, obviously. The kid in Madagascar with a decent internet connection should access Space Marine 2 the same as someone with a £2000 gaming PC. Cloud gaming enables this by running games on remote servers and streaming the results to any device with a screen and a connection. The democratisation is genuine. Expensive hardware becomes irrelevant when the processing happens elsewhere. However, this utopian equality comes with a dystopian trade-off: you don’t own the hardware anymore, you just pay ongoing subscriptions for access to everything.
The Equality Argument
Cloud gaming eliminates the hardware barriers preventing people from playing games. Friends who can’t afford gaming rigs get immediate access through $2-20 monthly subscriptions versus thousands upfront for a capable PC. The setup is minimal; any laptop, tablet, or smart TV with a decent internet connection becomes a gaming device. The accessibility is revolutionary for people previously excluded by hardware costs acting as an insurmountable barrier to entry.
Ian’s primary reason for Game Pass is the cloud streaming feature. Playing games off Microsoft’s servers means his potato laptop handles what would otherwise require expensive dedicated hardware. The premium tier includes cloud access making the library playable on devices that couldn’t install games locally. The functionality transforms gaming from a hardware-dependent hobby requiring substantial investment into accessible entertainment requiring only an internet connection and a subscription.
The geographical equality also matters. A person in a developing nation with fast internet gets the same access as a wealthy Western gamer with the latest hardware. The hardware gap disappears when both stream from the same servers. Regional pricing for subscriptions further democratises access by charging based on local economic conditions rather than flat global rates. The combination of cloud streaming and regional pricing creates unprecedented accessibility for a worldwide audience.
The Ownership Horror
Lucas’s reaction captures the nightmare: “Just imagine you just bought a PC. Amazon decides to make all gaming cloudy. What you gonna do? Cry in your bed at night.” The scenario isn’t a hypothetical nightmare but a plausible future where cloud gaming doesn’t supplement PC ownership but replaces it entirely. You don’t own a PC anymore. You don’t own a console. You just have a TV and an internet connection whilst paying subscriptions for everything including the internet itself.
The replacement fear differs from cloud gaming as an option. Having a choice between local hardware and cloud streaming provides flexibility. Being forced into a cloud-only model because the industry decided eliminating local hardware is more profitable eliminates choice entirely. The difference between “cloud gaming is available” and “cloud gaming is the only option” represents a loss of ownership and control over how you access entertainment.
The payment trap also compounds. Internet connection is a subscription. Cloud gaming is a subscription. If you don’t have money, you can’t play. If you don’t have internet that day, you can’t play. The dependencies stack creating fragility where multiple subscription services must all remain paid and functional for access to work. A single point of failure in payment or service availability eliminates access to everything simultaneously.
The Elitism Debate
Al’s socialist idealist position asks why we should have exclusive access to games. Why shouldn’t the Madagascar gamer have the same access as a European with an expensive PC? The equality argument is compelling. Artificial scarcity based on hardware affordability doesn’t benefit anyone except hardware manufacturers. Removing barriers seems obviously good when the barriers serve no purpose except excluding people who can’t afford the entry costs.
Lucas’s counter reveals an uncomfortable truth: “Having good connection these days not for everyone, mate.” More people have fast internet than £2000 PCs, making cloud gaming more accessible than local hardware. However, internet access isn’t universal either. The equality promise requires infrastructure not everyone has whilst claiming to democratise access. The accessibility increases but doesn’t reach the universality cloud gaming proponents suggest.
The class warfare implications are real. Cloud gaming threatens enthusiast PC culture by making expensive hardware unnecessary whilst promising accessibility for the masses. The threat feels elitist because defending PC ownership against cloud replacement looks like protecting the privilege of affording good hardware. However, defending ownership of gaming hardware against a subscription-only future is defending property rights rather than defending exclusivity. The distinction matters but gets lost in the equality framing.
The Harmony Solution
Cloud gaming whilst saving for a PC represents a functional compromise. An investment period for people building toward ownership whilst using cloud gaming for immediate access creates a pathway rather than a permanent state. Cheaper options like PlayStation, Steam Deck, and the upcoming Steam Cube also provide stepping stones between cloud-only and high-end PC. The technologies working “best in harmony with each other” acknowledges both approaches have value serving different needs.
The problem is corporate incentives favour replacement over harmony. Subscription revenue is recurring and predictable. Hardware sales are one-time with ownership preventing ongoing monetisation. Companies prefer models generating continuous revenue over models where customers buy once and own permanently. The harmony position requires companies choosing less profitable options out of consumer benefit, which seems unlikely when maximising shareholder value is the primary obligation.
The transition also matters. Moving from “cloud gaming exists as an option” to “cloud gaming is the only option” happens gradually through hardware becoming obsolete faster, games requiring online features unnecessarily, and subscription services becoming the only way to access new releases. The shift from option to requirement isn’t a sudden decision but incremental changes making alternatives increasingly impractical until choice disappears without anyone noticing the transition point.
Why Fast Internet Isn’t Universal
Lucas’s childhood memory about shiny things and bullying captures gaming’s traditional exclusivity. Not everyone could afford new consoles or games, creating social hierarchies around access. The “beautiful tradition of make people feel bad” and “makes those people try harder” represents a harsh meritocracy where exclusion motivates achievement. The perspective is callous but reflects the reality that scarcity and competition drive aspiration.
The internet access scarcity is different. You can’t “try harder” to get internet infrastructure that doesn’t exist in your region. Fast internet requires physical infrastructure investments that corporations won’t make in unprofitable areas. Rural regions, developing nations, and economically depressed areas lack reliable high-speed internet regardless of individual effort or motivation. Cloud gaming’s equality promise only applies where infrastructure exists, excluding precisely the people who most need accessible alternatives to expensive hardware.
The requirement also creates vulnerability to service disruptions, data caps, and throttling beyond user control. Local hardware continues working during internet outages, network problems, or ISP disputes. Cloud gaming becomes completely inaccessible under the same conditions. The dependency on external infrastructure outside user control introduces a fragility that ownership prevents.
The Dream vs Reality
The dream is universal access to games for everyone regardless of location or economic status. Cloud gaming moves toward this by eliminating hardware barriers, enabling access through devices people already own, and scaling globally through data centre infrastructure. The democratisation is genuine and valuable for people previously excluded by hardware costs.
The reality is cloud gaming as an industry replacement for ownership rather than a supplement to it. Companies prefer subscription models generating recurring revenue over hardware sales enabling permanent ownership. The equality promise becomes a Trojan horse for eliminating consumer ownership entirely whilst maintaining purchase-price subscriptions. The accessibility increases but comes at the cost of ownership, permanence, and independence from ongoing corporate control.
Does cloud gaming’s promise of equal access justify eliminating hardware ownership, or does the equality argument disguise corporate preference for subscription models over one-time purchases?
Either way, the Madagascar gamer getting the same access as a £2000 rig owner is good. That same accessibility requiring everyone to abandon hardware ownership and submit to permanent subscriptions is terrible. Both things are true. The question is whether we can have equality without sacrificing ownership, or whether the industry will use accessibility as an excuse for eliminating ownership entirely.
Also, having fast internet is still elitist, mate.
