What do you think is the future of video games?

News & General Discussion
21

Personally, I am skeptical about VR, still waiting for AR to show any real content with staying power and not just novelty games like Pokemon Go, and not to sure about new tools REALLY giving us the “create game” button, or procGen solving all problems out there.

The foreseeable future is filled with interesting new hardware experiments in VR/AR, like there were interesting new motion control systems experiments out there in the last 10 years (that didn’t really set the light afire in the end, but gave Nintendo quite a boost and gave us exciting new games like Guitar Hero), GPU power keeping scaling up nicely thanks to intensified competition from AMD, hopefully the same could be said about CPU power if Zen turns out to also ramp up competition.
4K screens replacing FullHD as the standart resolution, Mobas and Hero Shooters being replaced by something new as the AAA poster child genre (please make it RTSes), maybe more shifts in the way console hardware is built and distributed, shorter lifecycles or going in the direction of moving the hardware part into the cloud.

VR, to me, will most probably stay a small niche once the bubble bursts and people see the current crop of VR as the quite limited expierience it is. A perfect match for seated simulators, still an awkward expierience for most other genres unless the gameplay gets severly limited to match the limitations of the VR devices.
AR I can see as a perfect match to mobile and social gaming, like what Pokemon Go does. I don’t think it really fits hardcore gaming, and I don’t think most AR games will have a ton of staying power. I could see most people tire of playing something like Pokemon go after a while.

Game making will certainly change, new tools will bring new ways to speed up the process. The wild hopes some people on this very forums have that there will be a tool in the foreseeable future that gives you the “build MMO button” or similar things is maybe going way to far.
Sure, at some point we ALL will be replaceable by AI. At some point there will be the question if you even need ANY game developer working on a game anymore. Will that be a great time for game devs? IDK.
Even before that, if there still is some input needed from a game dev, it might turn out the increased efficiency in building games will lead to an increased ouput of games. Again, we have seen that over the last few years, more because the flood gates of steam and similar stores got wide opened for Indie devs. I got the feeling that this turned out to be a blessing and curse especially for the small Indie devs that had high hopes for just that to happen.

ProcGen… meh. I see a ton of potential in it, but again, the “second coming of christ” hype it sometimes gets is a little bit blown out of proportion for me. Sure, we have seen some very GOOD examples of procgen done right, when procGen was used sparingly to enhance the traditionally crafted expierience. We have seen what it can lead to when procGen was used as a crutch to help people overscope massively (see NMS)…
Goes quite in the direction of the “build MMO” button. As long as you don’t build a tool or ProcGen as intelligent and/or competent as a good game designer, and give the tool enough iteration time and a massive set of testing and feedback loops, maybe even with real players, you will most probably get a flat expierience like NMS was for most people.
Not saying this isn’t a solvable problem. That could be just where the human designer comes into play, feeding input into the system, then testing the result on real humans, throwing away the result and using the testing feedback as input for another round of generating a better designed game. Repeat that process, use the time savings not for shoveling out games at an increased speed (which would hurt the market and sales of everyone in the end), but use it for additional time for testing and iteration, and you might get better games to market, with more consistent quality control.
If this is the result of increased use of ProcGen and “make game” buttons, everybody wins (save the jobs replaced by machines, but with more testing being conducted more job opportunities there)… but maybe I have seen way to many shovelware popping up on Steam lately for not being a little bit skeptical about that :slight_smile:

22

It is not about morality. I just seriously think that the moment someone makes such helmet someone will instantly figure out how to weaponize it (by adding ability to shutdown brain/heart say, for everybody within 1 kilometer radius). And because morality or not, almost any government won’t let general populace have something like that.

Yep, they can be. This has been depicted in cyberpunk genre many times. The problem here is that SAO helmet interfaces with any organic brain wirelessly, while an implant require surgery. Meaning that in case of implant it’ll only affect people who installed that implant, while device used in SAO helmet can be used absolutely on anybody and probably without trace as well. At its core, it is a mind control device. That’s why I think it’ll be made illegal.

There are positive uses for atomic bomb. MAD doctrine. If it weren’t here, we would’ve gotten one more World War somewhere in the 60s.

2 Likes
23

You mean mass-hacking of helmets worn by people in close proximity? That’s definitely a potential problem, and it’s really part of a larger problem that I have no idea how it will be solved. Self-driving cars, brain implants, drones, these can all present huge problems if they’re attacked and taken over in some way. But the fact that the risk will be so widespread means it’s hardly likely any one thing will be made illegal, and again I don’t think it would solve the problem, and would potentially make it worse.

24

No, I mean mass hacking actual organic brains (without any implants) of people in close proximity.

As I remember it, SAO helmet does not require any implants in the user. Meaning that someone managed to fully decipher brain functionality and came up with an algorithm of overriding and supressing any activity in any part of user’s neural system.

This kind of discovery would be roughly on atomic bomb level.

25

Sometime this century there will be immersive realistic holograms - by which I mean like a holodeck with computer-generated experiences that you can feel and touch and seem solid etc, without having to wear a dorky clunky head-mounted screen over your eyeballs, which is is all the rage at the moment but let’s face it it’s still primitive.

The term hologram though has been grossly distorted now to mean like a projected image, which really borrows more from science fiction than what holograms are really about. Nevertheless, at some point we’re going to be having increasingly difficult time discerning the difference between physical reality and artificial reality. And there’s going to be a whole ton of ‘issues’ surrounding that in terms of mental health and the affect on people’s lives.

Reminds me of Inception where some people live their whole lives immersed in an artificial reality, ‘sleeping’ and dreaming of worlds that don’t even exist.

But hey, we’re already doing that.

26

The other thing I notice more short term about games in general is the increasing march forward of technology, which allows more and more people to do higher and higher level things and more advanced engines and so on. Things which used to be really way out there and not at all common or easy to do are becoming much more readily accessible to so many people, and then people use it like it’s second nature. So in a way I think the development of games is going in a similar route to where the games themselves are going, in that the experience of game development is going become increasingly immersive and realtime and high-level and more ‘human’. Death to programming languages.

27

Hypothetically speaking, if it was found that someone’s brain could be damaged in any substantial way from a long distance, it’s far more likely that a reasonable strategy would involve a more tailored solution such as, for example, targeted signal suppressors in public places, rather than attempting to ban something that merely exposes a security weakness, and has so much potential for benefit.

Not to mention, I’m finding it hard to imagine an electronic device that could effectively be banned, unless it relied on some kind of special ‘unobtainium’ or other the production of which could be regulated. Practically speaking, banning brain interface technology would do nothing to counter someone’s ability to produce a straightforward electronic device in secrecy, unless you want to go all the way and ban electronics as well. So as a security measure, it would be totally ineffective, not to mention causing an immeasurable amount of collateral damage to society and it’s prosperity.

28

A lot depends on your jurisdiction. Sure the US might have a problem regulating long distance killing devices. Heck, they might even encourage selling them, because constitution.

But there are other countries that regulate electronics just fine. It’s pretty challanging to get a laser pointer back home that doesn’t dissipate over a dozen meters or so. If something like that can be regulated, a mind control device certainly can.

29

I wouldn’t be too sure about that. I brought home a ton of homemade electronics (robotics stuff) last time and the customs inspector just looked at it doubtfully for ten seconds or so and then just told me to pack it up and move along. Would anyone recognize a banned electronic device whose innards have been artfully composed inside a laptop or an iphone?

But really, it’s not preventing a particular product from getting it into the country that’s the problem. The question is, is there any part of the device that can’t be bought locally as a component? How easy would it be to make? How fast could you turn something ordinary into the thing that’s banned?

It would be a bit like trying to regulate firearms when 3D metal printers are all over the place. If the capability can pretty much spring up anywhere it’s going to be extremely difficult to do anything about it.

30

They do a pretty decent job on meth labs here. Sure its not a perfect job. But I really don’t see why it would be any more difficult. You shouldn’t confuse the lack of the will to regulate with the lack of the ability to regulate.

31

The whole point is whether or not banning can/will happen of ALL direct brain interface technology that could potentially render someone unconscious or dead, since that’s what @neginfinity proposed if I’m not mistaken. My point of view is that it’s going to be impossible because it’s likely everyone will want to use this technology for a whole range of purposes that are good.

I’m not saying that society should simply throw up their hands and forget about any risks, but when there’s a strong desire to use technology for what is viewed as a benign purpose it’s going to be impossible to try to ban it completely. Drugs are a good example of this kind of thing. Speaking of which, what if this technology allowed a drug-like experience without much of the chemical side-effects?

Anyway, I think I’ve made my point. It’s very hard to get any more specific when so many of the premises are hypothetical.

32

That was not my point. My point was that if SAO helmet specifically will be created, due to its ability wirelessly override selected portion of user’s neural systems, it will be instantly banned and/or weaponized.

Brain-computer interface will happen, and most likely will be adopted, possibly widely. Some people will certainly raise a stink about them, but since it is not a “mind control any person” kind of tech, it’ll be probably available, as long as you’re willing to sign multiple waivers. Kinda like tobacco.

1 Like
33

Oh, this is easy. Take a look at gun laws in any country that forbid civilian gun ownership. Sometimes laws go as far as to cover laser rifles, gauss rifles, rail guns, crossbows and any item that could theoretically be used as a weapon.

2 Likes
34

Radar detectors and jammers immediately came to mind because they’re both illegal in my state (Virginia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_detector

35

Am I correct if I read that what you are saying is that any device at all that can wirelessly override a user’s neural system will be banned? Assuming for simplicity’s sake that for security purposes, ‘overriding’ can mean simply zapping, I don’t think that it will be banned. Regulation will happen, regardless of whether it’s effective or not (and I don’t see why it shouldn’t be reasonably effective), but I don’t think banning will.

The reason is that it’s likely that any form of brain interface technology used en masse would be wireless. Not many people enjoy the idea of invasive cranial surgery when they are for most intents and purposes perfectly healthy, so it seems to me that any consumer version of brain interface technology of any kind, would act by sending signals wirelessly through the skull (let’s assume no technical issues there). So I assume this would fit the definition of what you think would be banned? In that case, I disagree, because when there’s a mass consumer market for it, when it could do all sorts of things such as pain relief, electronically-induced high, cognitive enhancement, management of brain disease, and potentially immobilised VR experiences, it will be very hard to restrict what people see as their ‘liberty’ to use these devices.

This is totally out of context. What kind of average joe or jane has any use for rail guns and radar jammers? The only reasonable real-world comparison to this hypothetical brain interface technology is drugs, and we all know how effective it’s been to ban those.

36

How convenient for your argument that you’re only touching on the portions of our comments that are a bit far out there. While the average person may not have a railgun or a radar jammer, it is entirely feasible to buy other weaponry like traditional bow and arrow, crossbow, pistols, shotguns, etc.

Radar detectors are likewise very easily obtained depending on where you are in the world and very practical for people who enjoy driving faster than they should. For the US where only some of the states have banned its sale and usage obtaining one is as easy as driving across the border of one state.

Purchasing fireworks that normally require special licenses for some states happens this way too.

http://www.dof.virginia.gov/fire/safety/fireworks.htm

37

Sorry, by radar jammer I was thinking of planes or something - I don’t drive so that didn’t spring to mind!

I don’t see what it is that I’m avoiding - if a crossbow is easily obtained (I think this is what you’re saying?) then it proves my point that banning it is ineffective. Even and so, very few people have an interest in crossbows whereas interest in wireless brain interface technology would potentially be very widespread through the general population.

The difference is that obtaining weaponry and jamming radars in order to speed is sort of an active social aggression, even if you never use the weapon the act of obtaining it is still somewhat inside that frame at least from the point of view of a lot of society. Whereas something like drugs is not, and I think this is why it’s so difficult to ban them. People don’t feel like they’re doing any harm or even posing any sort of threat to society when they use drugs, and many actively campaign on the idea that it’s good. It’s a lot harder to argue that someone shouldn’t be able to smoke pot than it is to argue that they shouldn’t be able to purchase a machine gun or even a crossbow.

And I think it’s in this frame that brain interface technology will fall. There’s nothing inherently aggressive about the act of using it, and literally anyone could potentially benefit from it. Like I said it’s literally in the same class as drugs in terms of what it can do, and the way it will likely be viewed by those who use it and those trying to ban it.

38

How do you know we’re not all ready in a computer game? :o

1 Like
39

Yes. In case of implant, implant can be upgraded with security measures.
However, if someone stumbles upon an algorithm that turns your organic brain into an equivalent of unsecured computer without firewall, antivirus and all ports open, it will be banned. Because we’ll be dealing with wetware that can’t be easily patched. And even IF there were bioengineering technologies available, bioengineering attempts will raise much more stink than implants and there will be groups that will attempt to oppose it, violently, so it won’t gain as much traction as implant, cybernetics or cyborgization.

That’s fully in-context. The kind of average joe who’ll want to kill someone with a weapon that can’t be easily traced.to them could be interested in making a laser gun.

That doesn’t work. There’s nothing inherently aggressive about owning a WWI-era chemical WMD and one can benefit from using it as a pest control. It is still illegal, though. You can say “nothing about inherently agressive” about pretty much anything (especially owning that something), including hard drags, but there are laws against them anyway.

40

Fair enough. All I’ll say is that if it ends up taking on on the same sort of character as drugs do in this day and age, banning it will be worse than useless.