The week leading up to 2020 is the time to take stock. And not a year, but a whole decade. We remember how in 2010 the world represented the modern gaming industry. Who turned out to be right, and who dreamed too much? The revolution of augmented and virtual reality, the mass distribution of 3D monitors and other ideas about what the modern gaming industry should have looked like.
The beauty of far-reaching assumptions is that hardly anyone will verify your claims. In December 2009, futurist Ray Kurzweil that by 2020 "glasses will directly transmit the image to the retina" and "will be able to cover our entire field of view, creating a three-dimensional virtual reality with complete immersion." VR is evolving, so he was right about something, but my glasses are still just glasses that help me see. I'm sorry Ray.
It's easy to make a mistake when talking about big changes. Unlike Kurzweil, I don't believe in future anti-aging gene therapy. But recently I about what will happen to gaming if Google Stadia and streaming do take off. Please don't laugh at me in 2029.
Bold and often wrong assumptions at the end of a ten-year cycle are inevitable. It's nice to let your imagination run wild, plus the end of the decade is a great intermediate point for taking stock and making plans. We'll be sharing crazy ideas for 2030 soon, but for now let's see what 2009 and 2010 thought about today's gaming. Some things came true, some didn't.
Bullseye: Steven Spielberg predicted that VR will be in trend
The beginning of the new millennium could not please us with virtual reality systems from sci-fi films of the 80s and 90s. (we only got the Wii Music) and they started to feel like something impossible. In 2009 ridiculed Steven Spielberg for suggesting that VR would still show itself: "Apparently Spielberg finally read William Gibson's Neuromancer, saw Jeff Fahey getting high in The Lawnmower Man, and can't get the red and black Virtual off his head Boy from Nintendo. Oh yeah, and somewhere in between, he watched The Matrix."
But Spielberg was almost right. Here's what he said: “Virtual reality, which was experimented with in the 80s, will still be the object of development - just like 3D is now again taken up. VR will be the new gaming platform.”
Whether VR will become the new gaming platform remains to be seen. But we are on the verge of 2020, and Valve has not only developed its own VR helmet, but also announced Half-Life: Alyx, which is being developed exclusively for VR.
Hah, no: 3D monitors are the future
One analyst TechRadar in 2010 that "by 2020, most games in general and all AAA games will be in 3D". Too bold a statement. Nothing has been heard about 3D support for several years. Here is the answer to the question that our friends at TechRadar then asked: “Is it true that [3D] will really take off or is it just another coming trend in the world of technology?”
At that time, 3D TVs and monitors made a lot of noise. Manufacturers needed a strong selling point for their wares, and 3D movies like Avatar were the perfect bait. Home 3D cinemas still exist, but it turned out that a flat picture is enough for most people at home.
Close, but not exactly: Kinect will revolutionize
Project Natal, later renamed Kinect, is a non-contact game controller that recognizes body movements. Microsoft developed it for the Xbox 360. The project was announced at E3 2009. Time Magazine one of the best inventions of the year, and many websites called Natal "revolutionary".
I found it more strange than revolutionary. But then everyone was occupied with motion recognition technology, remember at least the PlayStation Move. The question arose: is everything going to change now? Not really. Several games have been developed for Kinect: Kinect Adventures!, Kinectimals, Kinect: Disneyland Adventures, every Just Dance to this day. But this project did not revolutionize the gaming industry.
The prediction partially came true, because motion recognition really turned out to be a promising technology. She proved that VR does not depend on screen resolution, but on the accuracy of motion tracking. And right now, technology has a much better chance of making a fundamental shift in the gaming industry than Just Dance.
Mimo: AR will be at the height of fashion
Microsoft illustration
AR, of course, is in fashion, but not its last squeak. In order not to embarrass anyone for the tweets from a decade ago, I will not provide links, but people believed that VR would come and go, but AR would remain. But Hololens, Magic Leap and other AR systems are in no hurry to hit us.
Now VR offers a much more interesting gaming experience. And I don’t quite understand how projecting 3D images into my boring bedroom can be cooler than completely replacing the same bedroom with luxurious locations. Pokémon Go has been a hit, but it doesn't require fancy glasses.
AR has potential, but I'm not sure it will be as interesting as many thought. Yes and with privacy in Google Glass can be repeated. We are constantly being watched - a fact. But I'd rather not visit public restrooms filled with cameras.
If people get used to it (and we are already used to spreading information about ourselves all over the Internet), then Kurzweil was right. Just rushed with glasses that will drive AR and VR. I would push this event back another 20 years.
Again past: Intel predicted that we will control the computer with the help of the brain
Reddit audience in fidelity to this theory ten years ago
According to Intel has predicted that by 2020, brain implants to control computers and TVs will be commonplace. Similar technologies exist (for example, Emotiv), but this assumption sounded ridiculous even ten years ago.
But we have to admit that only Computerworld made such a bold assumption. Their article states that "the likelihood of implant spread is high" and that "people may be more positive about having brain implants." And it is true. Experimental implants already people with paralysis. But I do not believe that even by 2030 we will have brain-controlled computers.
Also wrong: OnLive is the future of the gaming industry
In 2009, game streaming was new and some thought it was the future. Denis Dayak said that streaming will change everything. Although he is a little his statement, pointing out that it could take 20 years for the technology to do this and that "things could go horribly" at first. And so it happened.
OnLive did not bring any profit and became the future only for the Sony patent (the company bought the service and used its achievements in PS Now - ed.). And now, ten years after the OnLive storm at GDC 2009, the same hopes for the “future of gaming” are already being placed on .
That streaming will be the future of the gaming industry has yet to be proven or disproven. Now Google even , why should anyone be interested in the Stadia service when the most popular game in the world (Fortnite) is on any device and without streaming.
Top graphics, which Stadia has not yet dreamed of, are not a commercial argument for this platform. Running games without downloads is great, but if your internet speed allows you to use Stadia, it won't take that long to download games. I don't discount streaming, but it's been ten years since OnLive was supposed to revolutionize the industry.
Not even close: mind reading, human hosts and "programmable matter"
In March 2009, Gamasutra held "Games 2020". Readers were invited to present the results of ten years of technical and cultural development. Some of the ideas were really crazy. For example, an AR game that takes into account and uses real events from your life and "programmable matter" that transforms into magic scrolls.
Or : "The human puts on the Suit and becomes the human host. The control in the game is carried out by the touches of the player (the one who touches the host), as well as the muscular reaction and the external response of the player (that is, the host). The interaction ranges from light touches to deep muscle massages. Relaxing, beautiful, intimate."
Cheerful reading. Only it's not about how people think technology will develop, but rather about what kind of games they would like to see. Many described titles that are organically integrated into human life. Some have predicted that AR will spice up everyday activities like vacuuming and going to the supermarket. People picked up the word "gamification". There was also one correct assumption that popular games can be run on any platform: from mobile to computers.
The only 100% correct answer
In 2009 on about what gaming will look like in ten years, the CEO of the Canadian studio Ubisoft, Yannis Mallat, replied: “I can’t be caught on this. It's just a trick to make me laugh ten years from now."
Conclusion
If we take all the assumptions less captiously, then not all of them are wrong. The death of the single player is a gross exaggeration, but over the past decade major publishers have really put a lot of effort into creating permanently online worlds that never sleep. Weekly challenges, battle passes and endless endgames complemented our everyday routine with daily game quests. Mobile ports and crossplay mean that family dinner is no longer an excuse to leave Fortnite, and Twitter likes and Reddit votes for gifts and gear create a metagame for every game.
We do not yet have AR glasses that reflect quest markers on the way from work to home. But this thought captures the essence of AR strategy: getting attention wherever we are. VR isolates, while AR can be anywhere, which is why it attracts marketers more. Time will tell if they can fulfill their dream and turn the whole world into a video game.
Source: habr.com