Implants And Our Evolution

It is looking fairly clear to me now that as a race we are heading for an interesting split in our evolutionary tree. I think we can predict a few interesting branches in our evolutionary timeline.

I had some fun with this one, but I think it can be quite a divisive subject, and it certainly will have very real political and cultural implications. Really even the discussion about GM food falls under the issue.

Who Wants to be Part Robot  

The first split will be defined on either side by those willing to be implanted with technology devices and those who do not want to be implanted.

This is an easy call right now, as those willing to be implanted is going a close subset of the community that presently spends most of their time plugged into mobile devices. This demographic is already in effect a partial implanted set, on a psychological level. The switch to permanent access for some will be seen as minor, it will be understood as simply an 'upgrade'.

The scifi term for a technically enhanced human is a cyborg, a cybernetic enhanced human. Scifi writers expected coming cyborg races to emerge through technology developments that would be based around physical enhancements, both in the field of medical repair (like the bionic man) and for enhanced performance eg for military means.

It is already clear that the military is skipping the cyborg step and taking the leap to full robotic armies. Robot soldiers are much easier to mass produce and faster to replace with new models, there are none of the issues of biological time for growth and training to deal with. Drones are in live field in many parts of the Middle East today, and two-legged and four-legged robot soldiers are in development to be seen on the battlefield within 5 or so years.

I believe the battlefield itself has been a computer game for a while already. It's only the 'execution on the ground' part that now remains to be fully automated, then the human is made redundant (except as the victim). I think now the most important military technology has become the code used to command and execute a cyber war. It is way more easy to hack into and take control of a robot army than to bother fighting it. Drones and missiles have already been overtaken by hacker groups and will be again. 

But back to us as a race. These developments are already having a massive effect on us. There will be no more jobs in manual labor over the coming few decades. All the talk you hear about unemployment is not going to change, and i expect there is going to be much much more of it. There is simply is no more 'work' at least in the sense of that old school manual stuff, left to do. 

Japan is well on the way to creating a fully robotic sub-class to pick up all the manual labor of their society. China, the world's manufacturing base, is also hot on the trail. While suffering workers shortages, many of the top manufacturing companies have already started aggressively moving to fully robotize their production lines.

"Foxconn, the world's largest contract electronics manufacturerby revenue, is accelerating its automation drive and could deploy as many robots as workers at its China factories within three years, Guangzhou's 21st Century Economic Report says. "

The US on the other hand is aiming to compete with China taking an interesting tac for creating an even cheaper workforce by allowing prisons to now commercially hire out labor creating a new slavery system.

So us funny humans are left twiddling our thumbs and looking at screens. I am certain at least a chunk of us is going to take the cyborg route, and will upgrade to an implant version of their phone at some point.

NUIs 

Up until recently the cutting edge of computer 'user interfaces' or UI was the graphical user interfaces seen on phones, Apple and Microsoft devices. Graphical UI's (GUI's), originally mouse driven, have recently entered into a phase of rapid evolution, becoming more touch and gesture driven.

Touch interfaces are often augmented with gesture sensitive systems to drive command sets from the user. Taking a further step, technology already exists for both neurologically projecting a graphical image into a human brain, as well as neurologically reading commands from a user brain back into the computer. I call this type of human computer interface a NUI for 'Neurological User Interface'.

I believe NUI's will replace GUI's within the next 10 or so years.

(This technology has already been used, for example in fighter jets being piloted via such neuro connected systems. But these have already become redundant for military use as it is now dumb to put a pilot in a jet, when a jet can be replaced by a fleet of drones controlled by a far more advanced artificial intelligence computer system)

Evolutionary Branching

Technology based evolutionary branching of our society has already started and been detected in heavy computer or smartphone users..

"Use of hand-held technologies, such as mobile phones, GameBoysand computers, has caused a physical mutation in the under-25s, according to new research. The study, carried out in nine cities around the world, shows that the thumbs of the younger generation have overtaken their fingers as the hand's most muscled and dexterous digit."

"If you're over 30, you'll probably press a doorbell with yourindex finger, while anyone under 30 may well use their thumb."

The present set of smartphone junkies is in a full evolutionary shift, with real measurable changes happening right now. But I believe the point where this will kick in at an even greater level is when we start implanting NUI devices. From this point on, different human traits become more important and relevant to an implantee than to a non-implantee, this will strongly drive evolutionary change in different directions for the two branches of humans.

I call call the emerging race of NUI implantees NUIBorgs or just NUIBs.

However, there is a second evolutionary branch, that will overtake the NUIBs, that I find more exciting. The NUIBs will come from heavy use of neuro interface implants, but there is the possibility to interface with technology on a superior level to the neuro based interface. For me the next, more superior wave of technology after NUIs is Psychic or Psy level interfacing, enabling a technology skip of the primitive neural interfaces.

I define the difference between Neuro and Psy based interfaces as how deep the interface goes into ones intent. Neuro interfaces read and write to the areas of the brain relevant to motor or emotional response. Whereas Psy level interfacing goes much deeper to communicate on levels of intent.

Consciousness

Our science is struggling with the concept of non-local consciousness. Up until recently, science thought of consciousness as a 'local' phenomena that only existed 'in' the brain. But science is being assaulted by a barrage of data from diverse fields that all show this view to be inaccurate.

I will leave it to you to explore this, but in summary, it is now fairly clear that the 'neurological brain' is simply a receiving device for consciousness, not the source of consciousness. This opens up the 'technology' sphere to create all manner of devices including consciousness receivers, transponders, reflectors and transformers all of which I believe will come about as we begin to more tangibly grasp the science of consciousness (as opposed to the science of neurology) and put it to work.

At this point the NUIBs will have a potentially competing evolutionary line to theirs that can emerge from the group that are averse to implants. Humans that got neuro systems will have evolved themselves down a branch that can be superseded by the new emerging Psy human branch. Sure it 'may' be possible for NUIBs to shift to Psy based systems but this really depends how far down that evolutionary line they have gone. The main issue I see with the NUIB rout is one of continuing and increased desensitization from the connected requirement to heavy stimuli, eg bigger special effects, stronger sound effects. These take their toll on sensitivity.

Which is for you ?

The fact that consciousness is non-local means that communication can happen at a distance between human and device. No implant required.

I have heard some say this was one of the ancient technologies of Atlantis. I can't confirm that, but I can say from experience that crystals can be effected by consciousness and vice versa.

Also obviously our planet is crystalline in nature, it has a synergistic effect on us and us on it. This means we are on some level in communication with it, something many indigenous cultures are well aware of, as well as many wisdom traditions.

Modern westerners have become pretty numb to nature, but many seem to be able to make the consciousness leap when they take the right chemicals. I don't think you need the chemicals, but they can help some of us remember what is real and that's got to be a good thing.

Maybe you could call it 'evolution' when we get the hang of this, but really its just a new remembering of what we forgot.

Bitcoin and the Greatest Bank Run Ever

As mainstream society learns about Bitcoin and what it offers I seriously think we could be looking at the biggest bank run in human history.  The end of banking as the system of creating and controlling money.

When mainstreamers start to trust the Bitcoin block chain (the anonymous cryptographic peer to peer network that stores the bitcoin transactions) Why would there not be the biggest bank run the world has ever seen ?

Bitcoin has two risks to always be aware of 1. that the protocol could be compromised in some way , and 2. that you could loose your password.

But the longer it stays up, the trust will continue to grow. This trust will reach a point where it surpasses the trust that people have in banks and governments. That is the tipping point I am talking about.

I believe fiat currencies (debt based currencies backed by many governments) are in a slow dying process. I don't think they are a useful or valid concept in our modern world. The more you understand how they truly function, the more I think you would agree with me.

Bitcoin is forcing people to look at how money works. What people find when they look is not so pretty.

Fiat currencies are inflated unpredictably, the process known as debasement. The question is, why would anyone leave their value somewhere where it gets worth less and less over time though the debasement of printing more and more money ?

The answer is that they wont, as soon as they know there is a viable alternative its over.

Also the fact (that many are unaware of) that money in the traditional Fiat system has interest due on it, is an additional form of robbery from the people in the system. I call it a form of robbery as many don't know or understand that their value is being taken from them both by this means and by that of debasement.

Traditionally the only alternative to this Fiat system was gold. But gold can not be traded easily long distance and is heavy and physical, the banks had it their way in history.

I hope its obvious to you in this light that it is only a matter of time before we shift to better systems of value representation as a replacement to the current banking system.

Fiatleak is a fun site that in real time shows the worlds fiat money moving to Bitcoin.

Taking this further, as I covered in my infostate post it is my belief that over a longer period of time 'nations' of the future will be bounded not by borders but by the use of a common crypto currencies. The features of which will embody the policies that people have already agreed on by virtue of choosing those currency 'systems'. No need to vote for one, just start using the features and coin of the 'nation' or nations! that you agree with the thinking on.

Its going to be an exciting few years if this really gets going. As confidence continues drop in the fiat system and continues to grow in block chains,  the point will hit where everyone wants to get their hands on what ever is the leading set of virtual currencies, it will be a world wide phenomenon, not a local country based one.

It wont exactly be fair either.. the people who got in early will have a massive advantage. The present money system is hardly fair in this way either. But I do believe that the ability to choose which crypto currency you use, will over time start to balance this out. Add to this the understanding that wars are fought over the right to impose a currency on a society (because of the covert forms of taxation i covered that this enables), and you will better understand what I mean here.

There are some good alternatives to Bitcoin already appearing, I see these as the beginning pillars of new nations of the world. Here is a good list of next generation currencies by market cap in $ or BTC.

In the meantime I would urge everyone to at least understand how to use some crypto currency and ideally get some. The timing of when you get 'in' is a massive factor on how the new wealth will be distributed.

We are in the beginnings of the transfer of wealth into the new paradigm. One where I believe wars and inequality are much harder to exist simply because the monopoly on creating money (the thing of power that everyone used to fight over) is now gone.

Bitcoin Has No Competitors ?

I am watching Bitcoin on a massive run passing the all time high and heading for $Half Billion value.. will the bubble burst, or will it hold up and become the new gold.

If you have read my other Bitcoin posts, you will know I believe that provided the network stays up against DOS attack, it is inevitable that Bitcoin (or a better featured competitor) will begin to replace gold. For me this is only a question of timing.

(In short the argument is simply on feature merit, Bitcoin offers massively better 'features' than gold, purity issues, portability, transfer-ability, security etc etc are all superior to gold, once you understand gold as money is simply because of its function as a global ledger. And to say replace is not even the right word. As Bitcoin like any truly disruptive innovation makes multiple things, gold and fiat money to name just a few, irrelevant)

Something I think people have not yet realized the implications of is that Bitcoin does not yet have a competitor.

Sure we all expect more bubbles which burst. But without a true competitor to Bitcoin, there is an inevitability here where more and more people simple 'get it'. I am certainly seeing more people who simply decide to hold their coins whatever the price does.

I dont regard old money systems as competitors. Remember fiat money emerged as need based evolution of bank notes provided in return for 'gold in storage' gold was not easy to move around and trade with in volume so banks issued notes for gold held in storage, over time those notes became accepted instead of the gold, so if you had a version of gold that you can trade with easily 'like Bitcoin' the whole thing is moot... Modern paper fiat money, that has a very week link to gold in the vault of a central bank is currently in what investors call 'the race to the bottom' where multiple countries try to devalue their currencies in an attempt to revive exports. This corrupt system is well past its sell by date now and many are looking for viable alternatives for both trade and value storage.

I also dont regard simple forks of Bitcoin as a competitor, to me these are simply still Bitcoin.

So regarding Bitcoin I simply cant see how people who have started using it will stop unless the block chain is nuked or there is a better technology alternative. Add to that the onward march of the deflationary supply and you have a perfect mix for some exciting times.

Its the Better technology alternative that interests me, as that it what we will be moving to next.

As I touched on earlier, the only real threat to the continual rise of usage, other than a proper 51% attack is performance degradation. This occurs from high growth rate use, or high use growth combined with use based Denial Of Service (DOS) attacks.  If the core team manage to optimize the architecture to handle 'block bloat' (unlimited growth in the block chain) and the related performance issues, this will all be a non issue. But this is what must be solved as a priority. And after this, what is next?

So for any competitor to get in there, it would need to address the DOS vulnerable performance issues first. Secondly the competitor would need to deliver a key differentiating feature if it were to overtake Bitcoin. To me this feature is simply pure anonymity.

Anonymity as required a feature
It has become clear to me watching the success of Satoshi Dice (SD) that the 'mixing' functionality it provides is a missing part of the Bitcoin architecture. Hence by virtue of market forces this 'mixing' functionality has been provided by an external developer in the form of SD.

SD is the most popular bitcoin gambling game by far. You roll the metaphorical 'Satoshi Dice' and see what return you get. For anyone who is unaware here are some details from the Satoshi Dice IPO prospectus from August 2012.

Key Statistics
• Over half of all global Bitcoin transactions are SatoshiDICE. Over a third of transactions that have ever occurred on the Bitcoin network are SatoshiDICE. The majority of mining fees ever paid are from SatoshiDICE.
• 6 out of the top 7 Bitcoin addresses are SatoshiDICE
• The site achieved 1,000,000 bets just four months after launch
• Averages over 9,200 bets totaling over 5,246 BTC in wagers daily
• Has generated over 78 BTC in average profits daily
• At historical average daily volumes, SatoshiDICE is expected to generate over 2,990 BTC per month in profit
• Volume of wagered BTC has not decreased even while BTC price has appreciated (volume has actually increased)
I dont know if this trend has continued since IPO but looking at the transactions on the block chain, SD is still very very common on there. SD (in my understanding) is providing the widely used function of 'mixing' and doing it better than anyone else (there are many other mixing services) (mixing is simply the ability to anonomise your transaction history on the block chain)

But the issue here is that since a) SD is identified as a key vital service and b)  SD is not elegantly architect-ed into the core bitcoin spec, it has the effect of adding to the DOS effect on the block chain itself. So its own use success contributes to the other key required issue of performance degradation.

It should be obvious now that this is not simply a 'performance issue' for the bitcoin architecture but a feature requirement.

If bitcoin does not do this in time, the place for a competitor to bitcoin is there.. A new blockchain currency will enter and it will replace Bitcoin unless Bitcoin manages to find a way to evolve into this itself.

The Infostate And The Colour Of Money

In my post last year The State Is Dead, Roll On the Global Free Democracy I laid out a view of how I saw the end of the state and how states of the future are really simply social networks, each with their own 'local currency' or digital currency (dc).

I'll call these future 'Information States' infostates. The total value any infostate is instantly measurable as the value of its total dc in circulation.

In my other post The Media Continuum I also think about software based social networks as multi user online games.

Hence one way of thinking about infostates is as online games defined by a set of game rules or 'constitution' of interaction. The minimum constitution an open (one anyone can join and augment) infostate could have, would be defined simply by the operational protocol of the dc in use.

I realised one of these infostates already exists in the form of the bitcoin community itself. What is particularly exciting to me is that as i had thought, a state defined and operated in this way is highly evolutionary i.e. it is setup as a community or game system that encourages development and adaptation in a massive way, it makes traditional states look retarded in comparison.

Traditional states get their value in a combination of three basic ways:

1. Steal it from others through the use of warfare (or financial warfare eg international banking) Kleptocratic State
2. Sell natural resources found within their borders, that others value. Self Destructive State (as it is not replenish able, its gone for ever)
3. Create new value through 'entrepreneurship'. ie come up with something useful that others value. Creative State

1 and 2 are the stone age ways to go about things. 3. is where its at for any state to build a lasting future on. Though traditionally the problem with 3 is that when any state gets ahead with it, the other stone age states use some formulation of 1. to take it. And so goes the argument for armies.

So the bitcoin infostate has got 3. in spades, the community itself is setup on a more enlightened evolutionary game system by virtue of the constitution passed on to the community through the consensual use of the bitcoin system of value trade. (All i mean by evolutionary is a game system that sponsors and sets the stage for creation of functional new value. Or in more traditional speak encourages entrepreneurial spirit.)

It is exciting to watch the bitcoin community dynamically work, people who in effect, like the constitution (the game rules) just get on board (join the state) and start to put their skills to into it and get on and build cool things. All this then builds the value of the infostate as reflected in the dc value. I watched the bitcoin economy exchange value to dollars go from $1 Million to over $50 Million in a short time.

Enlightened rules bring enlightened players. Its a good model for a an infostate that wants to create.

The system is hot because it runs a virtuous cycle of positive creativity feedback, or what i like to call a positive equilibrium evolutionary system model. (I use 'positive equilibrium thermodynamics' as an understanding basis what life is, and life without evolution is mostly dead, or will be soon ;)

I like bitcoin because it reflects an enlightened mind-set around interaction within a social group of people. It represents a great opportunity for more enlightened/evolved society.

The real question is weather society is ready for the freedom offered by it.

So what is money ?

Money is a rule system for value exchange. In more game design language, it is the fundamental interaction model for the game. In society, the money system is a reflection of how people treat each other at a core level (interaction model) and hence how they see themselves (you can only ever really reference an external entity against yourself, hence what you do to others you do to your internal self image/self.)

In short the financial system is the primary reflection of a society interaction model. As money is exchanged for human time or life force, analysis of the operational systems around money of any society will tell you how primitive the state is and show you where the social pathologies lie. The systems that govern money current or 'currency' are literally the core energy systems that breath the life of that society.

People like to say gold is real money. Why ?

Gold has no serious industrial uses, its a good conductor but silver is even better. Gold has no real value in its use for anything other than as money. Unless you can exchange gold for something else, it will do nothing for you at all (other than cosmetic value).

So gold works as money because, a) it is scarce (there is not much of it about and you cant make it. You have to spend time finding it and digging it up b) It is distinctive. Its easy to know what it is and it can be easily identified for what it is. c) it does not corrode easily and deteriorate

Gold is simply an accounting system, price is set by demand for its use as a system of storing and exchanging value. Gold is the accounting system from the stone age that we use on Earth.

OK so gold is the real money, on top of gold we have created these things called FIAT money systems that are basically tools for how you steal assets (like gold and physical resources) en mass. Its why I like the term 'willing kleptocracy' for main stream society. FIAT money and warfare are pretty synonymous but that's another article. (War in various forms is what you would expect of a kleptocracy as a kleptocratic state would be value based on my 1. option. War is the way of the stone age state, especially one that has exhausted option 2. of self destruction.)

All the accounting features of gold are matched by bitcoins, (its scarce, hard to create out of thin air, easy to know what it is). Added to that you can send bitcoins to anyone over a wire and you can manage them easily in ways that you cant do with gold, eg break them into smaller pieces and not need to get out some scales to agree with someone else how much you have.

As an accounting system bitcoin is way better than gold. If gold is real money bitcoin is better real money. And if gold has value simply because of its technical features as an accounting system then obviously bitcoin will simply replace gold as a store of value over time. Why keep gold around with its weight and storage cost if you can have a useful alternative. The only value remaining for gold would be its cosmetic and small scale industrial value.

But bitcoin has value based on two things. 1. As the digital currency of a new infostate (reflects the core value of that state in relation to everything else). 2. As a real money system (accounting system that is better than gold that anyone can start using to store their value in). Over time you would expect the value of the bitcoin economy to tend to at least the value of all the gold.

So with the new ship infostate bitcoin floating on Earth we are left with the ancient issue of stone age war. What to do when you have all this good stuff and someone else doesn't like that.

Bitcoin has a defensive wall of the combined crypto computing power of all bitcoin miners, it is going to be tested. If someone can build a more powerful computer than the joint efforts of all bitcoin miners they can affect and mess with bitcoins transaction trail. So there is an arms race in this cyber world but its a race of compute power.

But the bitcoin network is already the worlds fastest crypto computer and growing. Its a pretty strong wall already but its going to need to be way stronger if bitcoin is going to last. The US spends trillions on war to help keep the dollar the worlds reserve currency. Bitcoin will become a threat to that game if it continues growing at its present rate.

I'm ok with with the concept of spending energy and CPU resources on bitcoin mining, you could call miners the defenders of the evolutionary infostate. They are the replacement for an army that traditionally would defend trade routes from robbers and other enemy countries wanting to plunder the trade.

Miners form the defensive wall around all trade in bitcoin with their CPU/GPU mining power. As bitcoin transaction fees are collected by miners who encode the transactions. A bitcoin transaction fee is a tip to the army of a new global republic.

If the wall stays up, war is a stone age thing. I prefer a defensive army that I can pay voluntarily. It is certainly better than traditional war.

-------------

The Media Continuum

(this is from an article i wrote for 2009 GDC (Games Developers Conference) in the gamesindustry.biz journal, I will be updating it further when I get round to it)

I have always been fascinated by games, not just because they can be engaging, exciting and even beautiful, but also because they are simply the deepest form of computer-human interaction.

I spent the last 25 years building technology to support games. Along the way my contributions have included RenderMorphics' Reality Lab and the first few versions of Direct3D. I continue to find the space fascinating, and I believe our understanding and mastery of games will continue to give them an ever-larger role in media as a whole.

In this article I intend to show how all media types sit on a single continuum. This will let us view the media scene as one complete whole, and consider the game industry in relation to it. By providing some definitions and covering some of the key issues we can do a quick survey of where the wider media is today as well as considering some of the interesting changes that we will be dealing with in the near future.

A number of issues I touch on warrant articles in their own right but my aim here is to give an overview and so I have to touch on many things briefly and leave it to you to extrapolate some of the ideas. But the following few lines are the central concepts that I hope the rest of the article helps uncover

As more media distribution moves to the internet our 'concepts of different media' forms - and 'how we access them' - will continue to converge.

This ongoing merger of distribution, leaving us with one dominant network, will drive more integrated forms of content. This, along with the accessibility of further content is when the network then becomes the media itself.


(Content and Access become linked: This is traditionally very much the realm of games.)

Games, Content and Access are Linked

In a game, the control system (how you navigate the content) defines a large part of how the content in that game is crafted. Remember we are talking about content that is interactive, we are not just talking about a video, we are considering functionality and behaviour as content too (a control system that is part of an object that you 'intuitively' understand how to operate, a puzzle that needs solving to enter, someone to talk to who will allow access, a plane that you fly you somewhere, are all examples of interactive content that have specific control paradigms). So when you are talking about content with interactivity, the access to the content and the content itself are linked. It is this link between interaction and content that traditional media people struggle to understand, but it is what makes the experience of a game deep and engaging when done well.

The Media Continuum

A channel is understood as a content library delivered to a defined demographic over the internet. A channel can be a website, a casual game portal, an online movie library or an MMO. The more exclusive content that addresses the channel demographic well, the more users will stay with a channel. The media continuum is then simply the complete set of channels delivered to consumers over the Internet.

It's All a Game

In terms of technology, games for many years have required a combination of all media types: 2D and 3D animation, movies, music and real-time interaction. So technologically-speaking, games have already unified all content forms. Only the game development community really understands the complexities of how to design for and use technology to build quality interactive content.

Because games are superset of all media, you can view all traditional media as games with the some of the features cut out. Hence to really view all channels as part of a continuum we have to think about all channels as games, at least in technology and design terms, even if they don't look like typical games to most people.

A Standard Player

What breaks up the continuum today is the client-side software, tuner or box that receives the content. This 'continuum breaking' is not in the interest of consumers or content creators; hence my personal view that it is a matter of time, and standard-setting, before the receiver is unified, just as HTML unifies the web.

TV and film have both a standard linear form and linear playback; this makes it very easy for content to be developed. The form is now over 100 years old and it has become so well understood that all innovations are pushed into the nuances of the content itself. The game industry conversely is still evolving; the big drag factors on the industry are the lack of a standard for game content creation, and the lack of a standard playback format for creators to deliver to.

These challenges are due to the complex interactive nature of games and the rapid advances in 3D and CPU technology; but they are not insurmountable, especially as the hardware changes are now beginning to settle and are much better understood by developers. Over time more standardisation both in game development and in playback format will remove many of those drag factors that the game industry currently struggles against, freeing up more cash and creativity for the content itself.

Open and Closed Channels

Today many channels are 'closed', meaning that consumers can't add content. Open channels are where third parties can add or augment content on the channel. LittleBigPlanet, Second Life and YouTube are examples of open channels. Further support for business models for content creators in open channels will be another key step in the evolution of interactive content. The way open channels can work and are managed both in editorial and design terms is a critical space for further innovation and one that I can only touch on in this article. Sony's PlayStation Home is perhaps the first major foray into a managed open channel.

Game Consoles are Controllers

I anticipate that the game consoles will simply become content channels on the continuum; you will have Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft game channels just as you have the BBC, CNN and National Geographic. Console-exclusive content is like channel-exclusive TV. Each console defines a channel and within each 'console channel' we will see further channels. Channels within channels will be something we will see a lot more of, too. (eg lovefilm on PS3)

As innovation in chip hardware continues we are arriving at a standardised high-end 3D-capable CPU. We see this trend with the present generation of consoles, where the chip parts are bought from PC chip vendors. We are not far off a single multi-core, multi-GPU chip that lives in all boxes and delivers all the power we need.

(AMD Fusion is a great example but and all major CPU vendors are following, its going to get bloody for the chip vendors as prices for these chips drops fast due to competition. You wont be able to buy a screen that does not have this 3D and CPU power built into it in a few years.)

The box from each console vendor will simply be the 'key' or the 'tuner' for the online content directory.

The control system a console offers has become the only way to differentiate one box from its rivals, as the Wii controller does today. In the end the controller will be the only physical device required, as the processing power will already be embedded in devices such as TVs.

As we are talking 'game' and as 'the interaction and content are linked', the long view for any console channel is to become a bespoke controller connected with its respective bespoke online content library.

Consoles and Linear Video

The console channels will go on to support more video, demonstrated by Microsoft and Sony already supporting film distribution. So apart from exclusive interactive content, there is every likelihood games consoles will supplant other set-top boxes, provided they have access to the content catalogue. Game boxes can run the very highest quality games and they can run video but set-top boxes can only run video and very limited games. The console will consume the set-top box.

2D and 3D biz models

In the 2d presentation space, such as the web, money is made from advertising. 3D presentation adds one more level of 'immersion' to an experience, an advert has no place in that experience (This has been proven through experiences in the game industry where advertising in 3space has been tried and died)

In 3space the monetisation model is functionality, you have to deliver something of 'function' to get paid for it, like the real world. Basic examples of this working are items you pay to upgrade in games or the trading economy for items say in second life. But this is just the beginning of what is possible, the growth of app stores is an example of this direction. The full step I am talking about is apps that deliver concrete and abstract function in 3space worlds.

Casual Game Channels

Competing with the 'console channels' we have casual game channels. It is going to be interesting to watch how the battle between these develops, especially as console channels can easily support casual game channels within them.

The difference may well come down to the revenue model as, like TV, casual channels are mostly driven by revenue from advertising. Once you apply my above rule re 3space monetisation you realise the innovation here for the future of these would be a 3D casual MMO as an apps ecosystem. (second life skimmed past this absent a game model) (so if anyone wants to build one, get in touch)

Traditional Linear TV

If you accept for a moment that the channel changer is TV's interactive device, then you can think of the TV experience in game terms; ie you watch until you get bored, then you switch between a fixed set of linear channels. The game element here is the channel surfing itself.

With digital distribution you get TV on-demand; again the interaction model is the thing to watch. The interaction is all about navigating content: with access to near infinite content, how do you find what you really want and how engaging is the process? You can't effectively Google an image or a video unless you know a name upfront. YouTube is the current leader when it comes to presenting a menu for a massive open channel archive, but there is plenty of space to innovate.

What the games industry is uniquely well placed to do is to use its command of interactivity to transform the interface with content - bringing the best of gameplay technology to content surfing.

Online Worlds are Social Networks

Each online world is a channel in the continuum. Facebook and other social networks are online worlds with most game elements stripped away to leave the game solely about social interaction; social networks can 'score' you by social kudos and presentation alone eg how many 'friends' you collect or how well you present yourself to them.

Fantasy Online Worlds (FOWs) like World of Warcraft and Eve offer contexts for social experience by providing themes and story goals for the interaction.

Facebook's innovation is in referencing the real person rather than using a name handle. In this sense Facebook is more the real Second Life than Second Life is itself, which is arguably more a highly configurable chat and conferencing system rather than a game experience.

There is massive space for innovation in the 2d worlds such as facebook, infact facebook is open to being virally taken out by the first competitor that matches its present functional and adds a key innovation, of which there are many options, from privacy to configurable social hubs (managed by sub social groups) to financial incentives for users to join.

An exciting development will be the arrival of open channel 3space FOWs that allow third party developers to build components and add-ons. Facebook is doing this now with its apps but imagine these in 3space worlds, the critical issue is how these are regulated or commissioned by the channel owner (but its all really part of the game design in the world).

A tax on trading items within a world, or an equivalent economic engine, would enable a revenue stream for building new content so that a studio could pitch fully-featured items to an FOW owner. I believe this direction to be one of the most important avenues to the future of on line worlds and social networks.

Fantasy Online Worlds with embedded Linear TV

As a FOW creates a context for social interaction, traditional TV series, news programmes and even reality TV are ready to emerge from within the bigger FOWs. One could imagine a drama series covering the real story of a guild clan from the history of the game world. There is a guaranteed audience within that FOW community for that content while licensing that content more widely would offer the chance to win over both viewers and new users.

Serious games

Serious games don't sound like much fun. To me the term feels like an oxymoron. What we are talking about is games that have a serious purpose such as training and learning, but if they stop being fun they stop being games, and if they stop being fun users simply stop learning as fast.

I have an axiom when I think about games and that is: the more fun you are having in any game, the more information you are absorbing.

So I believe games can and will have a much bigger role as a learning tool in mainstream society provided we get over the mental barrier of thinking that having fun can't be about learning. Even games for training, like simulators, fit in this category. If they were more fun they would help the trainee learn more quickly.

Our education systems are struggling to engage kids today. Building fun games around what we want our kids to learn will not only be the education system of the future, but also form a key part of adult training and learning systems in all disciplines. Whenever it is purely about absorbing information or developing specific operational skills, game experiences are an ideal way to load up the information. As there is plenty of space to innovate in this space I set up Earthsim to create an online learning world and experiment with some of these ideas.

Film

Film will always have a place both in the cinema and because of the cinema. Cinema is both a social experience and an immersive experience that's almost impossible to recreate in your home. But as consoles and set-top boxes access their content online more, the video rental store is likely to disappear.

Clearly its a multi user closed game channel, but people think its TV

TV game shows like X-Factor are more game than traditional TV: their interaction is all about voting and managing community expectations over time. It's effectively a massively concurrent game experience. They can be seen as worlds with minimal interaction, just the vote. Combining this managed expectation voting experience with FOWs is also an open space for the future and one that has very interesting implications for the way that other aspects of life, such as democracy, work etc just connect a social network to this and off you go... but that again is another whole article.

To sum it all up -

As distribution moves to the internet we can be increasingly sure where everyone will be accessing their content.

For games to realise their full potential as a major or even a defining part of this continuum we must address the issues of how to reduce the hidden costs or drag factors in their development and how to get this content playing in a more standardised format. Only then can the interaction deployed as content into the future worlds complete on equal terms with linear TV and Film content.

With this in mind, having delivered the first few versions of Direct3D at Microsoft I left to set up Qube Software with the purpose of investigating these drag factors and look into a possible solution. We believe we have come up with an answer in the form of our Q Technology platform. Ultimately it will be for the industry to judge whether Q does indeed address these challenges.

As a content consumer I would certainly like the have a single receiver that allows me to channel hop between all online worlds, social nets and libraries of games just like a viewer going through TV channels. I believe that this is not only possible but it is where we are heading with the media continuum.

Finally, looking at all media forms as games can inform us about what can be added and what can be merged. Distribution over the internet makes access to all media an interactive experience. And over the longest term this means the content and the accessibility of further content actually become the media itself.

The big bandwidth bandwagon and the commodity cpu

As opposed to oil, presently bandwidth is expensive.

Continuing the trend, bandwidth will get cheaper and cheaper. There is nothing hard for bandwidth companies to do accept compete with each other. The tec behind the internet gets cheaper and better every year and the wires can take much much more.

Companies that are purely in the business of providing bandwidth are going to struggle unless they offer some sort of additional service. The provision of these 'bundled' services will also become highly competitive and hence cheep.

To consumers this means everything that comes over the wire will drop to virtually nothing for the distribution costs. Many of the additional services will also get very cheep very quickly.

This means,
very cheep voice contact to anywhere
very cheep video contact to anywhere
video on demand and high def will get cheep.

Phone companies will be the biggest losers, expect them to desperately try to diversify their services and add 'bundles'. They will always loose to more competitive and focused companies on the net that provide the services. Say Vodaphone try to bundle games to augment their services and give people a reason to keep paying. This will struggle even medium term, specialist game services on the net will provide better options for consumers who want to choose their offerings. The bundled service will always be inferior so will stay cheep, it cant justify keeping up the distribution cost.

The content companies and the service companies will continue to be kings. The people that provide new and unique content or the people that provide useful services. Not the distribution providers.

The only way to make money on distribution is monopolise it and mark up. Something that is no longer easy to do. Game consoles are a good example where this trend still continues but even their is loosing traction against app stores.

CPU's
Over the medium to longer term the device at the end of the distribution line will be factored into the distribution paradigm. What i mean by this is that the phone, console or tv will also become very cheep (and often become part of the wire service, like a tv or phone is now)

There are still a few years to go here but chip tec is already beginning to go wide rather than deep. Ie it is going more toward parallel processing rather than faster processing. Both Intel and AMD are going this way and so is IBM/Sony with Cell. its the only big way forward in chip tec. But it is much less technically hard to make parallel chips than faster chips, so once again the competition is coming, and this means cheep chips on the end of cheep wires.

It will become just as hard to monopolise your chip IP in the future as it is becoming to monopolise the wires today. Intel will struggle and once again must move to 'bundle' service to keep value for its customers high.

(Intel will loose its high profitability for chip tec. And will need a new buisness model over time. They will have to get into software. Intel's money comes from the fact it has the deepest pockets to invest in the fabs that take the latest chip fabrication tec to market. This means they can fab the fastest chips the cheapest and quickest to market.. CPU's going wide changes all this)

Its going to get harder and harder to justify the hardware upgrade cycle to consumers. I see time frames of around 2-4 years for the wires and 4-6 years for the devices when these transitions really bite. The wires will be the most dramatic as there is nothing physical for the consumer to switch. The display will come last as there is more innovation to be had here. Until we go all the way to 3D projection screens will be moving.

New content that requires upgrade will always be actively sought after by the chip people. -> app stores deliver this.

Its all good for consumers.