Everyone is trying to invent the future of video games.
What I think in the future of video games is that at some point, people will manage to play in reality and use all of their parts of their body while playing video games, from hands to grabbing stuff, to your mouth for speaking. I think this will occur in about 25 years.
What do you think lies ahead for the video game industry?
One thing thatâs likely to change are the tools to make games.
We might finally get the MMO button. All it takes is at some point we have procedural generated content. Weâre talking the advances in technology of at least a couple of decades of course, but sooner or later we might have procedural character generation that comes ready with animation, physics, ai, and easy to configure. There wouldnât be much sense in reinventing the wheel most of the time. Even voice acting can become procedural (see Adobe VoCo). Terrain that actually looks beautiful, and it requires just a description from user, and then just a few tweaks. Same with music, just describe the mood, and choose among beautiful procedural examples, perhaps it can even by dynamic that follows the gameplay. Even setting the rules of the game can become more natural, with an AI that interpret what the user wants, accessing a cloud and taking previous examples to provide user examples of functionality, and then user just have to tweak the results so itâs more to his or her liking.
Indie game development could become more of a storytelling skill than a technical skill.
Think of VR/AR worlds where anyone can summon up their own worlds and populate it with characters then have fun and adventure in that world.
High resolution Minecraft like but with almost unlimited supply of configurable assets.
Of course if you want a more bespoke or branded HD experience you will still be able to go with the big name worlds.
VR/AR HMD that looks like a pair of glasses, and bracelets that provide electro muscular feedback and input.
Voted for âA major company dying out.â
People could do all that many years ago, it was called playing outside. You know, grab a stick, imagine that it is a sword, and enact an epic adventure with your friends. Also, it did not require $800 vr headset.
Just going to point out that you can totally spend far more then $800 on grabbing a stick and swinging it with your friends. 
I went on a 90 mile backpacking trip through southeast Yellowstone last summer. $4000 in gear and travel and food and such. Two walking sticks - didnât swing them much.
You left out Augmented Reality. I think this has more potential than VR and will become more mainstream eventually.
I just think AR/VR will merge, they both need each other AR needs VR level technology and VR needs ARâs awareness of the world.
I think the Sword Art Online (if youâre familiar with it) style of headset is what we need to be aiming for. Something which allows you to sit/lie perfectly still, but fools your brain into thinking that youâre using your full body - moving your arms, legs, walking, climbing, running, etc.
A little blurb from elsewhere that summarises it better:
I disagree as this would take serious MRI style brain mapping and induction of electrical impulses in nerve endings so would probably involve some kind of surgery.
With a lawnmower man style hmd and powered gyroscopic ring system you could use your full body with zero impact (no weight) as an input mechanism and with basic electro muscular feedback provide a very realistic VR experience.
With the added benefit of getting some basic physical activity*.
*Note people with disabilities and/or lower than normal fitness could use in game boosters that heighten their physical performance in game the same way current players run around at > 30 mph when they move their thumb.
Yep, but then how will the game know that youâre disabled? Does it do a test performance without the booster to tell?
Iâm still firmly convinced that this tech will be instantly made illegal once it is invented.
See, something capable of overriding your sensory input and suppressing signals to your muscles without need of surgery will most likely be also fully capable of stopping your heart remotely or turning you into remotely controlled puppet. And thatâs most likely the first thing the people will attempt to do with it.
A small price to pay for total awesomeness!
Weâre probably already in a simulation anyway
I agree. Being mind controlled by someone will be scary.
First of all, I get very uncomfortable when people say things like âthis hypothetical technology will be illegal in a future societyâ - not because it isnât necessarily a good idea to do so, but because regulation is usually the best way to increase the value of someting and the potential harm that it can cause. And also (generally speaking) when I see this kind of statement it seems to me to presume a sort of collective âmoral enlightenmentâ about what is/isnât good for a society which I think is a bit too optimistic.
But the real issue with this is that technology never comes in one form or for one utility. Sensory inputs going both ways can be applied to prosthetic limbs for example - and whoâs going to deny someone the right to have one? Hypothetically speaking - what about electronic brain implants for brain damage? Brain âenhancementsâ such as memory boosters or something like that - that could be potentially hacked with false memories? What about military applications of brain interface technology? Should it be restricted to military/police use? And what does that mean for the rest of society?
I donât think regulation will work here, not by a long shot. Because unlike an atomic bomb, there are actually positive uses for things like this in general society. Iâm not sure how we will deal with the risks, but making it illegal is probably the last thing that we could practically do about it.
Speak for yourself. The rest of the world has plenty of uses for atomic energy and spin off technologies. None of which would have been possible without the invention of the bomb.
Sorry, that was a poor example. I was referring to the bomb itself, not nuclear energy in general.
What I meant to do is simply point out that there are consumer-level uses for brain interface technology with many different kinds of positive effects, such as repairing disabilities, entertainment and enhancing productivity. Itâs not like weâre regulating rocket-propelled grenades or something like that where there isnât really a defensible consumer-level use for it (not that regulating weaponry has had much success historically anyway). So blanket regulation wonât work, and when blanket regulation is off the table it can get really complicated to manage how it is used.
I totally agree with everything you said. Just pointing out that you can draw all the same conclusions about the bomb itself too. Just because the bomb did a lot of damage and needed regulating, doesnât mean the entire technology is bad.
Yeah I guess the difference is the fact that brain interface technology has uses directly as a consumer-level product - whereas nuclear bombs and nuclear energy can be regulated easily at the source, and for the latter consumers only use the benign product.
Itâs hard to say whether brain interface technology with a very high risk of misuse would necessarily be a surgical procedure, in which case there may be some potential for regulation (although if plastic surgery is anything to go by, not really âŚ) but on the whole I think regulation wouldnât be a dependable strategy for managing it.