Intel foresees less controllers, more flailing arms in video games

It looks like Intel has some fairly big ideas of its own about the future of video games, at least if some comments Intel Chief Technology Officer Justin Rattner recently made to BusinessWeek are any indication. As the magazine reports, he said that Intel imagines that "some future generation of [Nintendo's] Wii won't have hand controllers," adding that, in their place, you'd "just set up the cameras around the room and wave your hand like you're playing tennis." Naturally, that mythical system would also be based on Intel processors (specifically, ones that can perform more than 1 trillion calculations per second), which Intel has apparently already talked to some unspecified video game console makers about using. No word if they've had any takers, of course, though we suspect at least some of them may be a little hesitant about the prospect of folks flailing their entire body around the room instead of just a controller.

[Via Joystiq]

[required @ Dec 19th 2007 11:46AM]

Sony and Microsoft are the ones currently offering camera based gaming not Nintendo.

If Nintendo ever did this their cameras would binge disposable batteries in the manner their remotes currently do.

[R @ Dec 19th 2007 12:31PM]

Don't you mean "fewer controllers," engadget?

love,
The Grammar Police

[ByronGman @ Dec 19th 2007 2:41PM]

Okay, WTF does it matter what Intel thinks about the gaming industry?

Failing arms or not, the console makers are always going to want more power in their consoles regardless of controllers.

[Quix @ Dec 19th 2007 11:49AM]

"in their place, you'd "just set up the cameras around the room and wave your hand like you're playing tennis"

I think Bill Gates mentioned this same "vision" earlier. Which sounds great, but then again so does 3-D holographic videoconferencing ("Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope"). In other words, it's great to dream about in some far-off future, but I doubt it's anywhere near realistic to think about it now.

"Set up cameras around the room?" Riiight.

Let's actually get voice recognition working to a level of acceptability before we start thinking about three-dimensional optical recognition, OK?

It will be several more generations of gaming consoles (at least) before we see anything like this actually work.

[lordofthedirectrix @ Dec 19th 2007 12:12PM]

I would think 3D optical recognition would be a lot easier than voice recognition.

[mike @ Dec 19th 2007 2:09PM]

This technology already exists. I saw a demo at MIT like 3 years ago.

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 19th 2007 2:33PM]

"I would think 3D optical recognition would be a lot easier than voice recognition."

It is. With cameras, all you have to do is track movement (changes from frame to frame). This is relatively simple for a computer to do. With voice recognition, you have to determine what wave is the word "a" or the expression "eh?", once you decipher that, you have to combine that with the sentence structure to try to figure out what the person wants to do.

I have a PS3 with the Eye Toy and when I showed it to my friends and family, they all loved it right away. Even though the games are a little wonky to control, they all wanted more. Motion capture is here today. The next step is making it 3D, and that's pretty simple with just 2 cameras facing 90 degrees from each other on one side of the room. Add another camera and it gets that much more precise. Though, this takes processing power.

[TonyB @ Dec 19th 2007 2:52PM]

You can have my 6-axis when you pry it from my cold dead hands...

[ravi @ Dec 19th 2007 4:14PM]

"Which sounds great, but then again so does 3-D holographic videoconferencing ("Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope")."

if the proposed system already has multiple cameras, taking that to the level of 3D videoconferencing shouldn't be too hard considering the game/software is already making a 3D model of you and your movements. taking that and making it into a 3d holograph can be done using multiple projectors as has been done before. http://www.eyeliner3d.com/

for the mass market in the near future, probably not. but very possible even with today's current technology.

[ravi @ Dec 19th 2007 4:14PM]

"Which sounds great, but then again so does 3-D holographic videoconferencing ("Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you're my only hope")."

if the proposed system already has multiple cameras, taking that to the level of 3D videoconferencing shouldn't be too hard considering the game/software is already making a 3D model of you and your movements. taking that and making it into a 3d holograph can be done using multiple projectors as has been done before. http://www.eyeliner3d.com/

for the mass market in the near future, probably not. but very possible even with today's current technology.

[Shawin @ Dec 19th 2007 12:06PM]

i forsee mind controlled video games!

[Robobagins @ Dec 19th 2007 12:12PM]

Waitwaitwait. Set up multiple cameras around my room to play games? And of course they'll be wireless.

Sounds like a setup for Nextgen Big Brother.

[riggs @ Dec 19th 2007 12:12PM]

its a way to make yourself look more like a dumbass.

[tekdroid @ Dec 19th 2007 12:17PM]

Nice. Remind me to avoid this console in the forseeable, or will the price and/or non-availability do that all by itself? :)

So you want to sit and play oldskool after a hard day at work, do you?
Get up tubby!

[Andir3.0 @ Dec 19th 2007 2:36PM]

I'm sure many "tubbies" will find a way to set up the cameras on their coffee table and use action figures instead of moving their entire body.

[TruthBringR @ Dec 19th 2007 12:18PM]

Wow, Intel Chief Technology Officer Justin Rattner is quite the visionary; downright inspiring. As inspiring as a popup that tells me I won a free iPod.

The only place I'm arranging cameras "around the room" to use his words, is in the bedroom right before a one night stand.

[wrabbit @ Dec 19th 2007 12:55PM]

As fancy as it sounds it's not necessarily practical. I mean, suddenly instead of just setting up a box on the tv we need to setup cameras - and I'm sure there will be some requirements for optimal placement, and what happens if they get obscured during gameplay because your buddy needed to get up to grab a beer or something. How many cameras are we talking about here anyway, 1 I guess wouldn't be too bad but for gesture recognition you'd need at least 2, and if you add face recognition to it then it's 3.

And then think of the control scheme itself - this kinda gesture recognition is great for tennis and bowling but how do you play FPS with it, or action games. At the end of the day you just gotta have buttons - because for some things I'd rather rely on the quick reflexes of my fingers rather than on the somewhat slower reflex of my entire arm. Can you imagine pulling off Tekken combos using some sort of gesture recognition system?? Let the accidental eye poking and groin kicking begin.

That's not to say I'm against developing the system - but I wouldn't get too excited about. At the end of the day, whatever control scheme you use, it'll have its limitations and be better suited for certain types of interactions - and there will always be room for old style button-based controllers.

[blade417 @ Dec 19th 2007 1:04PM]

I can see myself in my living room doing a dragon punch, or throwing a hadouken.

[lol @ Dec 19th 2007 1:58PM]

and this is different from a normal day for you...how? :p

But yeah, agreeing with another comment, I do remember Bill Gates mentioning something about this, and specifically mentioning tennis, too.

For some reason, though, I don't see this turning out well. I mean, when they record player motions for sports games, you have to wear that ridiculous motion-capture suit, and that just records movement, it doesn't even have any commands attached to it. I'm not interested in looking like a Blue Man Group reject.

[Leach @ Dec 19th 2007 2:17PM]

And you still won't be getting laid...

[mike @ Dec 19th 2007 1:56PM]

I bet the guy at intel who came up w/ the idea has never played video games... oh my god, buckle up the grammer police is here

[Bombaclaat @ Dec 19th 2007 2:13PM]

I think movement based controllers is a great idea, we can build a nation of hot, buff gamers. No more over weight kids and other countries won't call use lazy anymore. lol.

[nathan.wong @ Dec 19th 2007 2:17PM]

"You need to use your hands? That's like a baby's toy!"

[rainking @ Dec 19th 2007 2:23PM]

OMG! They want us to set cameras up all around the room? No one will ever do that! What's next?! I bet they'll ask us to set up speakers all over the room to get a fully 3-D sound experience? Fat chance anyone will do that!

[wrabbit @ Dec 19th 2007 3:35PM]

I know you're being sarcastic but that's actually exactly what's going to happen.

[buzzbean @ Dec 19th 2007 3:14PM]

I will accept nothing short of a halo-deck. Until then I am perfectly satisfied with my controller, thank you very much:P

[Twist @ Dec 19th 2007 4:16PM]

God I hope they are wrong. I recently got to spend some time with Super Mario Galaxy and the whole time I was playing it I was wishing I had a N64 controller in my hands. Motion controls works for some games, but for the majority of the games I spend my time playing good old fashioned controllers are the way to go.

[aguiluz @ Dec 19th 2007 5:06PM]

"more flailing arms in video games."

Did you mean, more injuries, more broken bones?

Seriously, how would this be possible?

[Ben @ Dec 19th 2007 7:35PM]

I predict the future of gaming will have an oversized head eating white pellets while being chased by ghosts........

[ToperBombast @ Dec 20th 2007 1:28AM]

Rather have a WiiSuit (sWiiter & sWiitpants? ugh, sorry) and a better/smarter receiver...