Future of Gaming

Published January 07, 2012
Advertisement
As technology improves, games will change like we cant even imagine.

Lets start with voxels. Everyone knows what a pixels are, right? For comparison, pixels are dots in

2D environment. Now imagine pixel, but in 3D. Thats voxel. You can see them as atoms in future games. Smaller the voxels are, detailed the model that its made of becomes. In future, we can see infinite details in our games. More RAM and more processing strength assures much more better graphics then on todays machines. Voxels will also allow much more better physics in all games.



You can look at it like this; Loooong time ago, when Pacman arrived., it was played on huge computers and, back then, those graphics were considered "great. Now the same game is played on our mobiles with graphics that are, well, not so great :). You can see the same situation happening over and over again in the past, present and future. So, basically, we will be able to play Crysis on a mobile phone.



So, thats for the graphics.



MMOs. Most updating games on the world. Every second "Patch 1.0.0.1, Patch 1.0.0.2....." That will also come to the new level. Do you know the fact that machines as powerful as human brain will be available for 1000$ by 2020? Do you know that same machines will cost no more but 20$ each by 2030? Now you do! Imagine games where humans are not its actual developers. Imagine a machine creating games around the clock much faster then human? Thats the future. MMOs, possibly even other games, will be infinite. Its something like this:

You are a player who played WoW for most time. You hear that max level is 100 and that latest zone is "#$""#%$#". You come to that zone and lvl up to 100. Then you realise that 100 is not max lvl and that "#$""#%$#" is not the the most difficult zone you can visit. All the sudden you see all new zone called "$#%&#%" and that max level is now 110. This is a process that repeats all over again.<br /><br />So, every game will be infinite. If we do some calculations, we can see that machines as powerful as about 50 human brains will we available by 2030 for 1000$. Yep, cheap sh%t <img src='http://public.gamedev.net//public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':)' />.<br /><br />With more powerful information sharing technology, games will not sell in those expensive boxes anymore. We will be able to download them instantly and play them, again, instantly without slow installations and HUGE downloads.<br /><br />Any thoughts?<div> </div>
Previous Entry Introduction
-1 likes 17 comments

Comments

weasalmongler
Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I feel this is all conjecture backed up by no facts.

What do you mean by "as powerful as the human brain", how can one quantify the power of the brain? And even if you could how can you guarantee that the current rate of hardware improvement will continue? Haven't they pretty much reached silicon's limit? All they can do now is improve processor architecture or increase the number of cores, but that in itself will have a limit.

Also, why should all games be infinite? I doubt every game needs to be that large, because just because the world is infinite doesn't mean that there is interesting stuff to do everywhere. If you want an infinite world you need to make it interesting for the player to explore. What about simpler games like plants vs zombies?

Would you mind linking to some of your sources backing up what you say?
January 09, 2012 03:23 PM
Stowelly
if you would like an insight into where hardware will likely go, here is a very good read from a reputable source.... Herb Sutter [url="http://herbsutter.com/welcome-to-the-jungle/"]http://herbsutter.com/welcome-to-the-jungle/[/url]
January 09, 2012 03:51 PM
weasalmongler
@Stowelly Thanks for the article link, it was an interesting read.
January 09, 2012 04:00 PM
doomtoo
I do agree that using Voxels in bigger games will be awesome. Or in a minecraft like game I saw recently- they are using something more complicated- basically smoothed voxels- to have the ability to remove a voxel, but the underlying surface is smoothed relative to the pieces left, rather than just cubes.

And you can't really get more accurate than making things out of "atoms".

Of course, in the humble indie bundle 'Voxatron', which had relatively large voxels, was a little taxing to run because of simulating all of them. But it really shows potential for the future of games using voxels :o
January 09, 2012 10:12 PM
coderx75
Sure, technology is exciting but I'd reel it in a little. We are entering a point of diminishing returns. Not that there aren't some fantastic things still to come but... what more do we really need? About 15 years ago I was looking forward to the day when computers could produce and process music/sound real-time and how I'd be able to do everything I want to on one machine and with little to no extra hardware. That day's come and gone. I've produced about 3 CDs worth of music, I'm writing a video game, I manage all business affairs and communications on my computer and my entire work day is spent right here at this same machine. I like that we are able to do more important tasks from smart phones but I really don't see hardware changing my life that much more than it already has. I don't think it needs to. It's software that I see bringing the next great advancements.

"Infinite games" are more of a software/content problem than a hardware problem. Procedural generation and streaming content allow for it now, however, content creation is expensive and procedural content generation tends to be unpredictable and, in most cases, boring. Honestly, I'd rather have a well-design, replayable game than an infinite one.

Voxels fail to excite me. It's like comparing bitmap fonts to Truetype fonts. Oh, but you can increase the scale of the bitmap. Well, anyone that has done any print work knows that pixels are weak. Voxels are no different. Personally, I'd rather be working with vectors. Using LOD systems with content generation, there's no limit to detail, unlike voxels that are limited to the resolution you set.

Also, the human brain really isn't a good comparison for computer power. It's not even remotely relevant, unless we can successfully produce a quantum computer. So, I know computers are going to be pretty damn powerful by 2020 and that the prices will be similar to today's hardware prices. Where the brain comparison fits in to this, I have no idea.

I think there's still a fantastic future in computing and our lives will be changed in unexpected ways. I just don't see those changes having anything to do with infinite voxel-based video games *shudders*. As for hardware, today's technology is mind-blowing as it is and people use it to check Facebook. That driving the market, I'm more worried than excited. =b Hehe
January 09, 2012 10:20 PM
Boallods
[quote name='neutrix' timestamp='1326122609']
Sorry if this comes across as harsh, but I feel this is all conjecture backed up by no facts.What do you mean by "as powerful as the human brain", how can one quantify the power of the brain? And even if you could how can you guarantee that the current rate of hardware improvement will continue? Haven't they pretty much reached silicon's limit? All they can do now is improve processor architecture or increase the number of cores, but that in itself will have a limit.Also, why should all games be infinite? I doubt every game needs to be that large, because just because the world is infinite doesn't mean that there is interesting stuff to do everywhere. If you want an infinite world you need to make it interesting for the player to explore. What about simpler games like plants vs zombies?Would you mind linking to some of your sources backing up what you say?
[/quote]

I am sorry that I have not included all the facts. You probably have not heard of nano technology that sciencetests are making these days. I am gonna make an special entry to show these facts and link it from this one. By the way, not all games have to be that way because that kind of software would be too expensive and hard to make. I am gonna show my sources in my other entry.
January 10, 2012 02:51 PM
weasalmongler
[quote name='LoreHunter' timestamp='1326207061']
I am sorry that I have not included all the facts. You probably have not heard of nano technology that sciencetests are making these days. I am gonna make an special entry to show these facts and link it from this one. By the way, not all games have to be that way because that kind of software would be too expensive and hard to make. I am gonna show my sources in my other entry.
[/quote]

Thanks, that would be interesting.

I have actually heard of nano technology. As far as I understand it you effectively build your material / circuit atoms at a time, so theoretically you could have a circuit board with wires a few atoms thick. However, as atoms are roughly 0.1nm wide and current manufacturing processes as of 2011 can get to around 22 nm, I don't see how we can improve upon this by much until we hit the fundamental limit of atom sizes. Hence my earlier comment on needing to introduce more cores for parallel computation rather than trying to just improve the number of transistors, but this in itself has a whole range of problems.

Anyway, I'd be interested to know more about this so I look forward to your next post.
January 10, 2012 03:42 PM
Aardvajk
neutrix is being very polite. Frankly, very little in your post has any basis in reality.
January 11, 2012 08:17 AM
Boallods
[quote name='Aardvajk' timestamp='1326269844']
neutrix is being very polite. Frankly, very little in your post has any basis in reality.
[/quote]

:)). I am sorry (again). I see none of you follows development of technology as I do. :)
January 11, 2012 08:43 AM
Boallods
[quote name='coderx75' timestamp='1326147643']
Sure, technology is exciting but I'd reel it in a little. We are entering a point of diminishing returns. Not that there aren't some fantastic things still to come but... what more do we really need? About 15 years ago I was looking forward to the day when computers could produce and process music/sound real-time and how I'd be able to do everything I want to on one machine and with little to no extra hardware. That day's come and gone. I've produced about 3 CDs worth of music, I'm writing a video game, I manage all business affairs and communications on my computer and my entire work day is spent right here at this same machine. I like that we are able to do more important tasks from smart phones but I really don't see hardware changing my life that much more than it already has. I don't think it needs to. It's software that I see bringing the next great advancements."Infinite games" are more of a software/content problem than a hardware problem. Procedural generation and streaming content allow for it now, however, content creation is expensive and procedural content generation tends to be unpredictable and, in most cases, boring. Honestly, I'd rather have a well-design, replayable game than an infinite one.Voxels fail to excite me. It's like comparing bitmap fonts to Truetype fonts. Oh, but you can increase the scale of the bitmap. Well, anyone that has done any print work knows that pixels are weak. Voxels are no different. Personally, I'd rather be working with vectors. Using LOD systems with content generation, there's no limit to detail, unlike voxels that are limited to the resolution you set.Also, the human brain really isn't a good comparison for computer power. It's not even remotely relevant, unless we can successfully produce a quantum computer. So, I know computers are going to be pretty damn powerful by 2020 and that the prices will be similar to today's hardware prices. Where the brain comparison fits in to this, I have no idea.I think there's still a fantastic future in computing and our lives will be changed in unexpected ways. I just don't see those changes having anything to do with infinite voxel-based video games *shudders*. As for hardware, today's technology is mind-blowing as it is and people use it to check Facebook. That driving the market, I'm more worried than excited. =b Hehe
[/quote]

In this situation, you can look at the brain as a computer. Memory of how a certain object looks like - 3D model. You can look at decision making as combination of code lines, or AI; etc.
January 11, 2012 08:48 AM
weasalmongler
[quote name='Aardvajk' timestamp='1326269844']
neutrix is being very polite.
[/quote]

That's the way I roll :).
January 11, 2012 01:47 PM
coderx75
[quote name='LoreHunter' timestamp='1326271707']
In this situation, you can look at the brain as a computer. Memory of how a certain object looks like - 3D model. You can look at decision making as combination of code lines, or AI; etc.
[/quote]
You have to understand your audience. Many of us understand this stuff at a pretty deep level. I can't look at the brain as a computer. Even the terms "memory" and "decision" mean completely different things when referring to the human brain and computer software/hardware, in both functionality and in their end results. I don't mean to nitpick but when you say something like "[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, verdana, tahoma, sans-serif][left]machines as powerful as [sic] human brain", I have to ask what you're talking about. We're just not speaking the same language. You might as well have told me that the weather is quite automobile today.[/left][/font][/color]
January 11, 2012 04:09 PM
Boallods
[quote name='coderx75' timestamp='1326298175']
[quote name='LoreHunter' timestamp='1326271707']In this situation, you can look at the brain as a computer. Memory of how a certain object looks like - 3D model. You can look at decision making as combination of code lines, or AI; etc.[/quote]You have to understand your audience. Many of us understand this stuff at a pretty deep level. I can't look at the brain as a computer. Even the terms "memory" and "decision" mean completely different things when referring to the human brain and computer software/hardware, in both functionality and in their end results. I don't mean to nitpick but when you say something like "
[left]machines as powerful as [sic] human brain", I have to ask what you're talking about. We're just not speaking the same language. You might as well have told me that the weather is quite automobile today.[/left]

[/quote]

Oh. I did not knew that this is "deep" for you. What do I need to do? Make it more simple or something? No offense , of course, but, I can not talk or write simpler then this.... or this is not what you are talking about?
January 11, 2012 04:33 PM
coderx75
Honestly, the GDNet guys threw you to the wolves by featuring your journal. =b All I'm saying is, for future reference, if you want to post and have any impact, know your audience. You can get a lot out of this site, mainly because a lot intelligent, skilled people here that deal with technology on a day-to-day basis and expect you to think about what you say and do. This is not a bad thing. It's one thing to say "In future, we can see infinite details in our games" or "every game will be infinite" and another to show available techniques, current progress made towards these goals and, most importantly, references. This triggers discussion and, in the process, you've been forced to think deeply about the topic.

Let me try giving a little more perspective here. Take this as an example:
[quote name='LoreHunter' timestamp='1326299633']In this situation, you can look at the brain as a computer. Memory of how a certain object looks like - 3D model. You can look at decision making as combination of code lines, or AI; etc.
[/quote]
Okay, I've been programming since 1982. These two examples are supposed to eradicate 30 years of knowledge and experience in order to install a new framework for which I am to think about computing.
January 11, 2012 05:56 PM
Morphia
[b]machines as powerful as human brain will be available for 1000$ by 2020? Do you know that same machines will cost no more but 20$ each by 2030?[/b]
[CODE]
<object width="640" height="400"><param name="movie" value=" http://www.youtube.com/v/PaCazwr1_8E?hl=ru&fs=1hl=ru&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src http://www.youtube.com/v/PaCazwr1_8E?hl=ru&fs=1?hl=ru&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="400"></embed></object>
[/CODE]
January 11, 2012 09:49 PM
NineYearCycle
Why has this post been "featured"?

What you're suggesting can be summed up as "FUTURE = AWESOME!" but you haven't given us any reasons. You statement that computers will generate future games so they'll update all the time is just a massive confusion of things we do because of our current limitations.

Take player/character levelling for example; it's lazy game design and one of my personal hates. It is popular because it removes the need to present something complex to the player regarding a real mixed skill set which is also missing from modern RPG games. Instead of having varied abilities we just scale everything by their "level" which is an arbitrary number based on how many rats they've killed. Yuck! What a load of crap.

Getting a computer to "generate infinite content" based on something like that has been possible since the bloody 80's when people had to and it's called procedural content. It doesn't always require massive resources and a machine smarter than a human being it's usually just based on the ordered application of rules to some data set representing a world or it's characters/NPCs/etc.

Go and Google "procedural content" before your next post, there already ARE infinite worlds. The problem isn't in making them, the problem is in the limited ability of people to create ways of creating truly compelling content. A level designer might come up with something that is truly an amazing design on a regular basis, but getting a machine to create that same level has so far proven to be very difficult.

Andy
January 12, 2012 09:10 AM
Boallods
People, I have made entry which should make this clearer. :)
[url="http://www.gamedev.net/blog/1281/entry-2254026-future-of-gaming-facts/"]http://www.gamedev.net/blog/1281/entry-2254026-future-of-gaming-facts/[/url]
January 12, 2012 01:18 PM
You must log in to join the conversation.
Don't have a GameDev.net account? Sign up!
Profile
Author
Advertisement

Latest Entries

Games are art.

2055 views

Future of Gaming

2614 views

Introduction

940 views
Advertisement