Slashdot Mirror


Extrapolating the Near Future of Gaming

Sci-fi author Charlie Stross gave a keynote address at the recent LOGIN 2009 conference about what we can reasonably expect from games and game-related technology over the next 10 to 20 years. He takes a realistic look at the limitations we'll face with regard to processing power and bandwidth, and goes on to talk about how augmented reality software and aging gamers will affect future titles. Quoting: "But the sixty-something gamers of 2020 are not the same as the sixty-somethings you know today. They're you, only twenty years older. By then, you'll have a forty year history of gaming; you won't take kindly to being patronised, or given in-game tasks calibrated for today's sixty-somethings. The codgergamers of 2030 will be comfortable with the narrative flow of games. They're much more likely to be bored by trite plotting and cliched dialog than todays gamers. They're going to need less twitchy user interfaces — ones compatible with aging reflexes and presbyopic eyes — but better plot, character, and narrative development. And they're going to be playing on these exotic gizmos descended from the iPhone and its clones: gadgets that don't so much provide access to the internet as smear the internet all over the meatspace world around their owners."

20 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Still there will be something in common by sanborn's+man · · Score: 5, Funny

    we will be still waiting for DNF!

  2. Have a look at the age pyramide by aepervius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those 60+ years old gamer will be a minority market in comparison to the 14-20 years old. Which is why today despite having 40 years old demographic, we still have a majority of game geared toward a less mature audience as a whole. And yes, I don't need to be 60 years old to recognize a trite story already made 100 times. I could already recognized that at 25. We don't get wisdom suddenly at 60 years old you know...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Have a look at the age pyramide by ouimetch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nostalgia is also a very big part of growing older, so I imagine it would be very wise to develop games with a more "classical" set-up that will appeal to these older users. Either re-releasing old goodies like various NES, SNES, Genesis titles etc, or developing titles with a familiar playstyle(who wouldn't want to play a sweet new side-scroller) would probly be the way to go.

    2. Re:Have a look at the age pyramide by bluesatin · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you haven't heard of a game called Braid, I'd recommend it to anyone.

      The main creator has a very strong view on gaming ethics, things like achievements shouldn't really exist.

      People will endure a long time of unenjoyable playtime just to get an achievement, the creator of Braid thinks players should just be having fun at every moment of the game just from game mechanics.

      Another great game I'd recommend is World of Goo, everyone that I've introduced to it has fell in love with it.

    3. Re:Have a look at the age pyramide by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless there's going to be a population boom (unlikely in western countries), I don't see how. It may happen if people lose interesting in games as they get older, but I guess the premise is here that that won't happen. Okay, 60+ gamers won't be a majority, but it's plausible to say they'll be a significant part of the market. Certainly far more so than now, where elderly people mostly don't play games, because they never grew up with them.

      And unlike middle aged people, they'll have a lot more time on their hands. And unlike 14-20 year olds, they are more likely to have the money.

      We've already seen a shift in games marketing already - up until the mid 1990s, games were still mainly seen as "for kids", and I noticed that with the Playstation, there was a shift in advertising towards young adults. Makes sense really: firstly kids of the 80s were now in their 20s; secondly, they had more disposable income (especially important considering the increasing costs of games production). The last thing games companies wanted then was to have the image stick that games were something only children played.

    4. Re:Have a look at the age pyramide by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Games are about writing stories

      Never has their been a more absurd statement.

      Games are about entertainment. Story-based gaming is one possible aspect. But when you're playing, say, Simon; what's the story there?

      The answer is: NOTHING. There is not story. There's not even a flimsy plot to setup why you're pressing the lighted buttons. You just are. And it's fun.

      Same reason why I don't need an excuse to blast aliens in Galaga. It's just FUN.

      Story is a way of adding depth to a game. However, it is not a requirement for a game.

  3. Presbyopic eyes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More like bionic eyes. It should be easy as long as they're connected to your blue tooth.

    And wtf is it with the iPhone reference, sure these future devices will be descendents of the iPhone in the same way they'll be descendents of Nokia 5110 or the original Gameboy. Srsly, the iPhone is nothing more than a portable touchscreen device with a rather childish looking interface. To put a reference to it in your article is only an attempt to freeload off it's hype.

    1. Re:Presbyopic eyes? by nyctopterus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you've failed (like a lot of the "Luddite" nerds ) to grasp what the iPhone has done. The interface is not "childish", it's good. In that, it does what you expect it to, and doesn't make me angry. It also feels more "real". Multitouch done properly is really, really nice, and no amount of elitist nerdy pouting is going to change that.

      I have never, and would never, buy a handheld gaming device. I have, however, bought an iPod touch--which I got for reading Slashdot in bed--but have actually bought quite a few games for it.

    2. Re:Presbyopic eyes? by mdwh2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      like a lot of the "Luddite" nerds

      An ironic accusation - it's not "luddite" when those people embraced technologies that did handheld gaming and Internet access years before the Iphone. Quite the opposite.

      The interface is not "childish", it's good. In that, it does what you expect it to, and doesn't make me angry. It also feels more "real". Multitouch done properly is really, really nice, and no amount of elitist nerdy pouting is going to change that.

      And there's not a single actual argument put there - you might as well say "Iphone rules! Nokia sucks!" It's not "childish", it's good, it does what it's supposed to, it doesn't make me angry, it "feels" more "real". It's really really really "nice", anyone who disagrees with me is just nerdy pouty! Please - let's have proper intelligent debate, and actual evidence and examples, not vague terms, assertions and childish insults. (And saying "really" a lot of times doesn't make an argument anymore convincing.)

      I have, however, bought an iPod touch--which I got for reading Slashdot in bed--but have actually bought quite a few games for it.

      So not actually an Iphone then. But good for you. And I have a Motorola V980 that I can use to read Slashdot from bed - your point?

    3. Re:Presbyopic eyes? by donnacha · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, the iPhone reference was important: the keynote was about "Extrapolating the Near Future of Gaming". When you extrapolate, you pull from what is happening today. The iPhone has shown that many normal, non-techie folks will use technology in unexpected way, and to an unexpected extent, if you make it easy enough for them.

      It doesn't matter if hardcore techies think that the iPhone is "childish" or if they think it is a badge of honor to continue using their Motorola V980, it really doesn't matter at all.

      What matters is what the mass of ordinary consumers move towards and, right now, today, Apple are creating a mobile platform and eco-system that could very well remain dominant for the next couple of decades, just as MS did on the desktop.

      But the key point is that the iPhone shows that good design can pull mainstream users towards technologies that were previously adopted only by relatively small niche groups, such as /. readers - our use of technology in twenty years will depend not only upon what is possible but, also, upon the good design and implementation that packages the possible and persuades the mainstream to integrate it into their lives.

  4. Business Plan for the over-60 game developer by drmofe · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Develop radical new gameplay idea.

    2. Get off my damn lawn!

    3. Profit.

    1. Re:Business Plan for the over-60 game developer by Razalhague · · Score: 4, Funny

      2. Get off my damn lawn!

      So, that's what "???" means.

  5. Sci-fi? by gplus · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think he would probably prefer the term SF.

    Sci-fi is Hollywood entertainment with explosions, technobabble, and spaceships that make rumbling sounds as they travel through space. SF (speculative fiction) is something that might contain a bit of actual intelligence hidden inside.

  6. Yes, we're getting older and bringing our stuff... by TinBromide · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It wasn't too long ago that I realized that in 2050 and 2060, old folks homes will be blasting metal so loud that their hard of hearing residents can hear it. By then, heavy metal will be what grandpa listens to and the young'ns will be listening to something equally infuriating and weird as linkin park is to our parents.

    Anywho, instead of bridge or cribbage, there will be virtual dungeon crawls and WoW guild reunions. I think that the direction that games have been taking over the past 10 years has already pushed games to a point that they can be enjoyed by almost everybody with the proper background. While I won't be able to play quake 3 as well in 40 years as I did 8 years ago (when twitch gaming was at its peak and I was in practice), I might be a challange in 40 years in a game like bf2 that is more about resource usage, anticipation, and strategy. Granted there are narrow alley encounters where twitch wins, most of the kills (ignoring air combat) in bf2 came from having a resource (tank or apc), being in the right place, and seeing somebody before they saw you. All of that came from knowing the flow of the map and the more experienced player would most likely kill a rookie who doesn't know what's going on or how to handle the map. The experienced player will track along a hill, not make a silhouette, and watch choke points, they probably won't camp, and I will never equate camping with skill. So knowing how to traverse a map, handle your in game weapon, and not make yourself a target comes with experience and will lead to more kills than being able to whip around and headshot someone. If they can't pick you out, they can't headshot you.

    So what I'm saying is that I will probably be playing games with veeery similar mechanics to those that I am playing now. Twitch gaming, a style that favored picking out movement from a sea of chaos, fast reflexes, and precise movements hasn't been in vogue for the past 5 years. I am certain, dead certain, that playing games like COD and bf2 have killed my abilities to be competitive in games like unreal 3, but in every pick up game I drop into in u3 (for the pc), I dominate. I was pretty OK in UT when it was at its peak and was mediocre at q3. I'd say that U3 is far more twitch than UT, but not as much as Q3. The twitch players aren't the majority of the FPS community. By the time i'm old and wrinkly, Twitch will be a long forgotten relic that we will talk about like people talk about terminals and punch cards.

    --
    Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
  7. Re:Enough with this "plot" nonsense by ouimetch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While some games are just games, there are many games that have a very artistic style to them. I remember playing Fallout 3 and just stopping and staring around at the scenery once I got outside of vault 101. It is certainly safe to say that many games transcend being simply entertainment, and have enough style and beauty to invoke a powerful emotional reaction in many of its users. Isn't creating an emotional response what art is all about?

  8. Re:Enough with this "plot" nonsense by mdwh2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Games are not art

    Says who?

    Sure, there's no need for a plot in a simple shoot 'em up, but I think good storytelling is important to things such as role-playing games. No, it's not a full blown AI, but neither is a book or a movie. Surely part of the fun is using your imagination, just as we are expected to do for books.

  9. Ranbow's End by marciot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reading through that article made me think of the novel "Rainbow's End" by Vernor Vinge:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows_End

    He spends a lot of time in that novel describing a world where augmented reality and total interconnectedness makes our day-to-day living into an ginourmous Second Life-esque, instant-messaging, avatar-riddled inferno.

    I found it to be a difficult book to get through, because I kept thinking to myself, I don't believe people will be so banal as to take such incredible technology and make it into something so frivolous and pointless.

    But, then I realize, it has already happened, and it's naive to think it won't happen again.

    -- Marcio

  10. The end of linear games by 4D6963 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Games of today look great, but a couple of aspects of some of the most popular games like GTA, Call of Duty and Resident Evil are outdated and I'll take the optimistic risk to say they'll soon start to disappear.

    I'm talking about ultra linearity (yes, even GTA is very linear) and the annoying aspects that accompany it, most noticeably the "try this missing again and again and again until you succeed it", and to a lesser extent to put the player in a ultra scripted environment where you could pretty much dictate them what they have to do, and have to prevent them from doing such trivial things as jumping over a small fence. As games become ever increasingly realistic, those sorts of unrealistic limitations are becoming important threats to the player's suspension of disbelief, and game designers will I believe have to get more subtle and work their way around it.

    But in my opinion both the problems of linearity and unrealistic limitations means that game designers and developers will enter an uphill battle to rethink the aforementioned ageing paradigms, but I think that in a way those new paradigms will be the new shiny graphics. To use the GTA series as an example, right now it's basically all centred around a long string of very scripted fixed missions cut with cinematics, with an "either succeed in all the required aspects or try again like nothing happened" system which is arguably incompatible with realism. In my opinion, the GTA of the future should be much more life-like, dynamic, one way to see how it would work would be like the Sims series, you are one person, you make encounters, create connections, obtain things from your connections such as jobs or whatever you may need, and everything you would do would have an influence of sorts. Fail a job and you have to deal with the consequences and impact on your reputation, start shooting people at random and you earn a reputation of psychopathic killer, by drugs, sell them on someone else's turf and watch things escalating with them, become a real estate agent, spend ten years in jail, join a gang, start a gang and delegate tasks, become a politician, etc, in other words, a free unscripted crime world/business world simulator.

    I'm not saying it would be easy at all to create, but I think there is lots to be done and innovated in that domain, and I think and hope that within the next few years game designers will see themselves forced to explore such solutions, and if it becomes a crucial aspect of making a successful game then great resources, talent and work will be put into it and the results will be very much worth it. Since both the market and technology push us towards realism we'll have to make things realistic in more ways than just the reflections on cars or the physics of driving.

    --
    You just got troll'd!
  11. Today's 60-something gamer... by westlake · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But the sixty-something gamers of 2020 are not the same as the sixty-somethings you know today. They're you, only twenty years older. By then, you'll have a forty year history of gaming; you won't take kindly to being patronised, or given in-game tasks calibrated for today's sixty-somethings

    Today's sixty-something gamer doesn't like being patronized either.

    If you began with the PC in your thirties, you entered a game market that remarkably diverse and often explicitly "adult."

    But not as the adolescent imagines it. You can't shoot your way through a Lucas adventure or a Maxis simulation.

    For a senior, the most satisfying moments in a stealth shooter, an RPG or strategy game, come when you sense the most economical solution. You aren't role playing as 007 in his prime - you are playing the aging, wounded Batman of The Dark Night Returns or perhaps the very young Carrie Kelley.

    Without gadgets. Without armor.

    Using only her wits to survive.

  12. Re:I will only be a 50 year old gamer by sa1lnr · · Score: 5, Funny

    "while I enjoy mid-life"

    Crysis?