(Very long side note: Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all estimate the shelf life of their gaming hardware to be ten years. That means we won't be getting a new Microsoft gaming console until 2015, with Nintendo and Sony a year behind that. There are numerous problems with that. With the ridiculous rate of progress on processors, RAM, memory, and essentially everything computer-related [sadly, not so much with batteries, but slow and steady wins the race right? {unless, of course, the turtle ran on batteries, in which case it probably won't make it to the finish line}], it is only a matter of time before these machines will be outpaced by complex games that could show up on computers around 2014 [this is wild speculation without any facts or evidence whatsoever]. Can the Wii really survive with its bad graphics for another 6 years? The Wii's not even halfway through with its life, and its sales have already dramatically dropped off. I would hope that sometime in the next 2-3 years a WiiHD or something similar will show up, not with the same capabilities of a PS3 or Xbox 360 but with something that can at least hold its own on graphic-intensive games. I see one of the Wii's problems being that it is marketed to the casual gamer, with games that don't really have anything to do with traditional gaming and its cheap-in-comparison price point. This works out great for the huge previously-untapped market of everyone who doesn't play videogames, but the very nature of their demographic defeats future reaping of revenue. A casual gamer or a non-gamer, by definition, use their game systems casually, and thus are much less inclined to buy numerous games in the future, especially with the novelty of the Wii wearing off [and let's be honest, much of the success of this console has to do with its semi-gimmicky controller {though the low price was probably a much bigger reason}]. Consoles make the majority of their money on games, and while selling games with expensive peripherals [(Rock Band, Wii Fit, Duck Hunt {yea, I went there}] can bring in the profits like no one's business, only a select few games can thrive when the equipment needed to play the game ends up costing more than the hardware. This leaves the PS3 and Xbox 360, with their base of dedicated gamers, with the advantage in game-selling in the next few years. However, they both have sold significantly less than the Wii and thus I'm not sure how much of an advantage it really is.
One of the ways to alleviate the problems of a ten-year shelf life of a set piece of hardware in an environment where development proceeds at an exponential rate is for the makers to release updates every few years to retain interest in their product. The PS3 Slim, the new XBox 360, the Playstation Move, the Kinect, hopefully the WiiHD all fall under of this category. While not new consoles, they change the way in which the console is used [at least in the case of Move and Kinect], increasing the time it is still relevant. [Perhaps a better way to keep sales high are price drops, which is mentioned by bloggers a lot, especially this year. None of the Big 3 systems have had a price drop since last holiday season, which means that sales this year will be significantly down. Though, more price drops mean less profit per console, and I'm sure all three companies are trying every way they can to crunch the numbers and drop their prices by $20-30 while still retaining a good profit margin [{or not losing too much}]. However, neither Kinect nor Move have any games that are interesting enough to justify shelling out a hundred dollars or so on two different attempts to capture some of the Wii's casual-gamer magic. Really, at what point will "you can use your controller like a fishing rod! We should make an entire game based on this" reach the end of novelty? [Side-note-within-a-side-note {I'm going Inception of yo asses!}: I am so glad that 3-D has finally gotten past the point of a novelty and is now actually being used to bring the audience further into a film. I grew tired of "Oh wow, the rock is coming right at me, duck!" at about age 12, as I am sure all of us did. I attribute this shift to serious 3-D to Avatar, in which it was implemented to envelop Pandora around the watcher {"We need to go deeper!" side-note: How stupid is it to name a planet "Pandora". Should anybody be surprised that there is stuff trying to kill you on a planet named that? Same with "Unobtainium". James Cameron, your naming of imaginary objects has severely limited your made-up characters' abilities to achieve their ((let's be honest here, extremely one-dimensional and archetypal)) goals. Jerk.}. How To Train Your Dragon had some gimmicky 3-D sections in it, but we're on the right path.] I'm not sure how much longer these guys can milk these gimmicks. I can only hope that in the future motion controllers and Kinect-like motion-sensing can be integrated into a game rather than having them be the whole point of buying the game. I can't see this happening to a huge extent with Move, because in the end it is a controller that's main purpose is being able to swing it around and having that picked up by the PS3. The Kinect, however... I can see some good stuff with this. What a perfect segue into what this post is actually about.]
The idea behind the Kinect is a simple one and arises from a simple question: What if people could play videogames and not have to use controllers? It is similar to the concept of the Wii Remote (What if you can interact with your videogames through the use of real-life movements?), but takes it a few steps further. It works through numerous motion sensors and cameras, and is able to capture your movements and translate them to the game. So, if you wave your hand around, the character in the game will do likewise. Concepts like this, where interaction of electronic devices is devoid of peripheral mediums, have been in science fiction for decades, and everyone sees that as the future. Well, with the Kinect, the beginning of the future may have just arrived.
There are innumerable concept items that do incredible things. Machines that can be controlled by our brains, robots that can have conversations with people, cars that can drive themselves; these have all been done in some way, but are lacking in the most important feature: mass production. While it's terrific that researchers have been able to do these things, many roadblocks are in the way to creating large amounts of their product and subsequently making them ubiquitous throughout the world. That they cost too much and that they can only complete their actions in a controlled environment are two of the biggest obstacles. A car may be able to drive itself, but maybe when there are only limited variables it must take into account. A robot may be able to talk to humans and understand both words and vocal patterns, but it probably costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless man-hours to do this. One day, perhaps all of these ideas will make it to the market and become integral in our lives, but until then they are just concepts and will most likely be subject to countless delays and numerous failed products (Jetpack, anyone? What about a Segway?) It is in this way that Microsoft succeeds. It has taken a relatively revolutionary product and introduced it to the market. They are hoping to sell 5 million Kinects this quarter.
This isn't a post about how great the Kinect is as a product. In fact, I'm pretty sure I would not enjoy using it. The games are all gimmicky, a very large amount of space is needed for it to work, and only a few people can utilize the motion sensors at one time. I might go for it in about a year, when better games are released and a larger local multiplayer is available. However, I think the technology in the Kinect will go way past videogames I think Kinect will be remembered for two things: medium-free gesturing and 3-D rendering (more on that in the next paragrpah). You can scroll through menus and select items through the movement of your hand and nothing else! The possibilities of this concept are nearly-endless. It could completely redefine the way humans interact with machines. Imagine your laptop as resembling a tablet; just one big screen with some cameras in the bezel. You sift through folders with a flick of your wrist in the air; you zoom in by making your hand into a fist and bringing it towards you; you rotate three-dimensional models by pretending to hold it in your hands. You don't have a keyboard, because the laptop can project the image of a keyboard onto a surface and when you hit the image of a letter it will appear on screen. These ideas for how a computer will work have been around forever (as well as the idea that screens will be holograms, but i have no idea how that will be physically possible. Wouldn't it require the ability to stop a beam of light at a certain point? If someone could figure that out, then thanks.), but until now have always been a concept. I'm sure some of these things, like the projector keyboard, are already around, albeit in very limited quantity. But this is Microsoft. They have a customer base in the hundreds of millions, and more than enough money to devote to researching these things. I can't imagine they will stop this implementation of medium-free gesturing at a videogame console; rather, I think this is just the beginning. Microsoft is sitting on a gold mine here, the technology that will almost certainly replace the current mode of interaction with electronic devices. And I can't imagine they don't know this. There are many articles out there already about how people have hacked the Kinect to use it in extraordinary ways (see here and here), and it's hasn't been out for a month yet. I can only hope that in time, Microsoft will implement this technology into other products, with even better hardware that allows for a multitude of processes that are only ideas at the moment. (Note: I know that many smartphones have this medium-free gesturing, which did not originate from the iPhone but was popularized by it. However, a fundamental problem with touch-based gesturing is that it is only two-dimensional. It is not a problem with the products that use it, but will be a problem in implementing this technology in other devices in the future. The fact that no 3-D object can be sufficiently rotated will be a huge setback to these machines, as I predict that soon most visualizations will be in this form. Processors will reach the point where free rotation at at any angle will be possible with no lag, allowing for a 360 degree view of an object [in a spherical way, as in any angle you so choose rather than just being able to spin it on a single axis. I'm not sure if this is actually considered "360 degrees", but I digress]. Imagine looking at a virtual house and being able to look at both the outside and inside from any angle you want. Maneuvering through this will be possible to do on a screen where there is no possibility of depth perception, however using your hands in open in space is much more intuitive and will be used predominantly. 3-D screens will also help all of this, but that is not the point of this post.)
The other major milestone in the Kinect is 3-D rendering. What this means is that a computer or other device is able to look at an area and virtually render it. As in, it understands where each object is in relation to other objects. This is not only useful for people observing the screen where this is rendered, but also allows for greater interaction between machines and humans. Robots will be able to better navigate obstacles, and pick up things, because they will have essentially a basic form of eyesight equivalent to what organisms have.
With these two technologies, the increased interaction between humans and robots will go both ways. People will better be able to interact with their machines by having a third dimension to use, and machines will better interact with people for the same reason. I should make it clear that the Kinect is not by any means the first creation of either of these technologies. Both have been around for some time, however they are used very sparingly and not in common products. The reason this is so revolutionary is that a large corporation that reaches into nearly every household in this country is releasing this product at an affordable price. This allows for a fast and widespread dissemination of the product. Millions of families will quickly become accustomed to medium-free gesturing, and hackers and tinkerers will use the technology to do things previously unachievable. Microsoft will continue to research this, as I'm sure other companies will as well, and this type of gesturing will become common and replace a piece of hardware such as a remote or mouse of what is "normal". This will take at least a few years, most likely more, but the first domino has now fallen. It is now a question of when, and not if, the implications of this will find its way into our daily lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment