Motion Sensing Hype

The biggest news that came out of E3 was probably Project Natal from Microsoft. It will be able to provide full-body motion control without a controller of any kind. Project Natal is a bar that sits by your TV, much like the Wii’s sensor bar. Instead of sensing controllers however, the bar has a camera, sensors, and a mic that keeps track of you and your environment. I personally think this is really cool. Not only would you be able to play games with it. The camera allows for facial and voice recognition, you could have videoconferences in your living room, etc. It has already been shown to two game developers, Epic Games and Bungie Studios.

Of course since I am a Sony fan, I have to talk a bit about its own motion-sensing system. It is based on the PlayStation Eye, light-emitting diodes, and wireless controllers with buttons. Even though it doesn’t sound as high-tech, it is already in developers’ hands, meaning that Sony is already past the research phase. While I think Natal has a lot of potential and the number of applications could be endless, it is still a big jump in terms of motion sensing. I may be biased, but I think at this point Sony’s system is a bit more solid and proven.

It is kind of interesting that we partly based our final project on motion sensing. We saw the head tracking video on YouTube a couple of weeks ago and decided to work it in with the shutter glasses. Just when we were about to present, we heard about all these E3 motion sensing projects. It’s almost like we predicted the future…

VR & AR

My favorite guest lecturer thus far has to be Tom Furness probably because I have always been fascinate by virtual images and augmented reality. After his presentation, I started thinking about all of the ways that virtual images could be used in scientific research. Right now in my research project, I am trying to figure out the structure of a HIV RNA hairpin when it is bound to a potential drug target. What if I could have a projected virtual 3-D model that I could manipulate physically? It would be just like in Iron Man when Tony Stark was using his nifty virtual technology to design the suit. Then, I would able to display the model at symposiums or conferences.

Tom Furness also talked a lot about his fighter jet cockpit designs and target tracking mechanisms. It would be so cool to sit in a chair on the ground and control an airplane in the sky via eye movements, head movements, and thought processes. This would enable the military to conduct longer missions and avoid risking human lives in especially dangerous cases. Of course, I am not saying that human pilots should be replaced. I still think that if the pilot is actually in the airplane, he/she would have faster and better responses.

I also really want to do something related to virtual reality or augmented reality with the final project. Perhaps it could be a game like Yu-Gi-Oh and you would be able to see 3-D images on top of the cards when you use a webcam or headset. Pattern recognition technology already exists and you can download the programs, so it wouldn’t be hard to make a prototype.

Nintendo: the last one standing

Even though I am strictly a Sony person, I have some newfound respect for Microsoft and Nintendo following Alex St. John’s talk. First off is Microsoft’s strategy to force all the other platforms to go online, which pushes game players towards the computer, which means more sales of operating systems. Even though Microsoft has lost millions and millions of dollars with the Xbox 360, the company really doesn’t care. When the Xbox 360 started pushing online communities and online games, Sony and Nintendo followed suit. This obsession with being online pushed game players more and more towards the computer. Low and behold! Microsoft just happens to be a computer company.

There is also Nintendo’s strategy in making novel game controllers. Alex St. John reminded us of the arcade games and the amount of revenue they generated. People paid to play arcade games because of the large machines and controllers that they could not get at home. Similarly, people pay to buy the Guitar Hero guitar and Wiimote because they could not obtain the same experience any other way. I am not entirely sure about his prediction with regards to Nintendo’s consoles being the last ones standing though. Granted, the Wii controllers and games are pretty original, but I don’t know if they are enough. Are game controllers enough to extend the lifespan of a game console? I don't really think so...

Game Trends

This week, I want to talk a little about current trends of the game industry. First off is the sale of virtual goods. I just read that virtual goods micro-transitions could generate $500 million in revenue for game and app makers on Facebook this year. The top third-party company on Facebook, Zynga, is set to make $60 million and the same goes for Playfish and Playdom. I personally have witnesses these transactions. When it was my birthday last year, a couple of my friends sent me gift images. Each one costs about $1.

I think the concept of virtual goods is pretty remarkable. People are so convinced that they “own” something, when the items aren’t even real. How can pixels be worth so much money?

Even scarier is the rise of free games. There are thousands upon thousands of free games on social networks, the iPhone, etc. When a person has to decide whether to play a free version or a paid version, of course the free version will be picked. I got an iTunes gift card for Christmas and have yet to use it because I always end up downloading or torrenting free music. I always ask myself, why would I use the gift card if I can get it for free? So what is going to happen to newspapers, movies, music, and other media as reliance on the Internet continues to increase? The Seattle Post Intelligence already went out of business. I can only hope that other companies such as Seattle Times and Gamestop would be able to endure.

Having Class in Second Life?

After the session with Richard Bartle, I do not believe that Second Life and similar virtual worlds are very effective as classroom tools. On one hand, our class was able to converse with Richard here in Seattle while he was in the UK. Many of the students did not even show up to class and instead logged in from home. On the other hand, it was a lot less intimate and immersive compared to when we actually had lecturers in the classroom.

The entire flow of the conversation was largely dominated by one or two individuals. Most of the characters were snoozing, flying about, or doing random movements behind the seats. I guess that since the lecturer wasn’t in front of us, it was harder to pay attention. And even when I was trying to participate, it was hard to keep track of the conversation. When a person asked a question, there were at least five lines of dialogue before the question was answered. I think that if we had audio and visual, the experience would be a lot more engaging. The class had the video conference with Ryan Dancy and it was great. We asked him a ton of questions and utilized class time efficiently.

I am now curious about online classes. I just experience my first online lecture and it was not on the same level as real ones. Can online universities provide the quality of education? Is it fair when online classes are weighed the same way as normal classes in terms of GPA?

Game Movies

Following Tyler Bielman’s guest talks, I feel compelled to address why game movies are so horrible. Take a look at Dungeons & Dragons, Dead or Alive, and Super Mario. Part of the reason must be due to the “marketing halo”. If millions are spent marketing the game and toys, producers don’t feel a need to spend as much money into advertising. Therefore, there is less money spent on the movie as a whole. Also, directors and producers probably rely on the franchises’ reputations to draw a large audience. If a Halo movie ever gets made, all of my guy friends would go see it, regardless of whether it actually looks decent. After all, Halo has tens of millions of followers around the globe. Even if a small fraction of this population pays to see the movie, say 10 million, the studio will still make at least 100 million dollars in ticket revenues. Of course, I realize that I am not counting the budget that went into making movie.

Of course, a movie is not all about profits. There are many instances of movies that have gained popularity despite a lackluster advertising campaign and a slow start in theatres. Instances include Serenity, Shawshank Redemption, Equilibrium and Slumdog Millionaire. These movies went on to become cult classics and are still loved by many due to their original content and story depth. This is the fundamental dilemma of video game movies. The fan base already loves the game. The content is not original, and the story has a predetermined depth that has been developed by expanded universe fiction, fan-based media and at times, academic works devoted to the analyses of said phenomena. People know what is going on from beginning to end, so that the movie is heavily dependent on a brilliant director who can yank the plot in an unexpected direction, without being disloyal to the fans’ preconceived notions.

So then the question is: if one were to find a brilliant director to take on a project like Halo or WoW, why would they be troubled to tackle a pre-made project in the first place? The most likely reason is a very large salary and need to exploit previously-created ideas due to a lack of original ones.

Grieving due to Grievers

Last night, I saw a post on the EVE cooperation chat screen and noticed a post about forming a team to do level two missions. Frustrated with what I was trying to accomplish previously, I decided to give this a try. He was in a nearby system, so we quickly met up. I told him about how I kept failing this particular mission and how I had lost a cruiser already. He agreed to help. We warped to the location, expecting to be hit immediately by a barrage of missiles. Surprisingly, none of the computer generated enemies appeared. There was a glitch in the game, which meant that I still couldn’t finish the darn mission! Instead, we decided to head out to low security space to work on more profitable endeavors. Meanwhile, we were contacted by a third person who read the post. He however was quite far away and would take close to half an hour to reach our location. We decided to wait for him, since there was strength in numbers.

He finally arrived so we started to head out. As soon as we went through the gate, we saw two battle cruisers just camping there. One of the guys and I were able to warp to another location…but the guy that spent half an hour to meet up with us had his warp mechanism jammed. His ship was subsequently blown up. It was so sad! Disappointed, he logged off and we followed suit.

So why do people choose to be grievers? Player-player altercations are normal in Eve especially over territory but then there are players that are just plain malicious. You can easily choose to make money via missions or mining. EVE Online, represents a virtual reality in a perspective not previously encountered. Socioeconomic trends lead certain people to become dejected and violent in their pursuits for life. Hence, you have many law-abiding citizens in EVE, as well as pirates and extortionists who would rather not wait to get their fix. Although the sampling of EVE players is non-random and includes people with similar interests (and presumably similar walks of life) the population displays the dynamics of what would be expected in a randomly-selected population. With just 50,000 people playing on one server, players have either miraculously assumed societal norms and niches out of habit, or else have been compelled by the previously-engineered system to fill the necessary occupations.

Still one question remains, as it has since the dawn of time. Why do some feel the need to blow others up? Where is the love?