The problem with (most) current technology is that, as other posters have recognized, takes too much concentration.
Why? Because most of the current systems are basically fancy biofeedback systems; they monitor large-scale things like galvanic skin response/heart beat/skin temperature and the like, and use those variables as an input system. This means several things, including:
1) It's hard to train oneself to modify these basic body functions
2) These functions are slow to respond to your commands because they aren't meant to be consciously controlled. Lag, if you will.
3) They are autonomous systems, so there's a lot of noise in the signal (is the heart rate changing because of the scary game... or is it changing because the gamer wants it to?)
4) The sensors aren't very good.
5) There are only so many things that are easy to control... limiting the numbers of 'keys' available to control the game.
For these reasons, I don't see what amounts to a digital polygraph being much use for anything other than training conscious control over one's bodily systems. Which is a market; there are legitimate reasons (ie, other than beating a polygraph) to want to modify skin temperature/heart beat/brain wave frequency.
On the other hand, I expect the eventual development of implanted control systems. We have already seen technical demos of the required technology: small electrodes. There's some things to be worked out and miniaturized, ie, we need a good way to beam the signals through the skull... but nothing really hard.
And implanted technology has been shown to be effective. Monkeys can control robotic arms, terminally ill patients (FDA is a bit more lenient with health concerns if they only have a week to live) have been able to control a cursor on a computer screen.
Because the electrodes are small - and can be made smaller - very few neurons are involved, so the number of keys (or axis) can be made very large.
I suppose this might allow a slight increase in the potential of a gamer, so it would end up in gaming use. Because, hey, if you have a neural interface, why should you rest your hand on WADS? All you'd have to do is write a little device driver so that the computer thinks your mindchip2000 is a mouse/keyboard, and you can play any game you want.
I don't expect that this level of interface would be substantially different from the level of control enabled by a 2x-analog-stick controller, and I don't think it'd change the level of immersion from what one gets if one is familiar with said physical control device.
It might allow a bit faster reaction, perhaps a hundred milliseconds, than with a handheld controller (the signal transmission distance is smaller), so would probably provide a slightly extended market for the neural interface companies: professional gamers.
**************
The next logical extension of this technology, one which (AFAIK) there have not been any developments in, is feedback from the computer. This would start out simple - telling the brain how it has moved the cursor - which would increase the level of control over the system. (compare an analog stick, which doesn't inform the user how far the look-direction has been changed, with a mouse)
Giving signals to the brain is old hat anymore; see cochlear implants.
It could probably be extended to providing visual feedback - I'm thinking direct stimulation of the visual cortex - but there's really very little reason to do so. Unless you let the brain-chip stimulation hog all the available cortex while simultaneously blocking input from the eyes, you won't get better resolution or color quality than a computer screen. So retraining the brain to use the fake stimulation instead of the real deal would be hard to reverse, I think. Which isn't so bad, really, in a way: I would like an eye (eh, head-mounted-camera) with a zoom function.
*************************
My conclusion? The implications for the state of the individual human organism are very large (the rise of cyborgs), the implications for society boil down to fewer repetitive stress injuries from typing, the implications for gaming as an art form are pretty damn small.
But, yeah, I think controlling games with the mind will catch on - because implanted tech will soon be better than a mouse&keyboard and neural interfaces have so many other (pragmatic) uses.
Why? Because most of the current systems are basically fancy biofeedback systems; they monitor large-scale things like galvanic skin response/heart beat/skin temperature and the like, and use those variables as an input system. This means several things, including:
1) It's hard to train oneself to modify these basic body functions
2) These functions are slow to respond to your commands because they aren't meant to be consciously controlled. Lag, if you will.
3) They are autonomous systems, so there's a lot of noise in the signal (is the heart rate changing because of the scary game... or is it changing because the gamer wants it to?)
4) The sensors aren't very good.
5) There are only so many things that are easy to control... limiting the numbers of 'keys' available to control the game.
For these reasons, I don't see what amounts to a digital polygraph being much use for anything other than training conscious control over one's bodily systems. Which is a market; there are legitimate reasons (ie, other than beating a polygraph) to want to modify skin temperature/heart beat/brain wave frequency.
On the other hand, I expect the eventual development of implanted control systems. We have already seen technical demos of the required technology: small electrodes. There's some things to be worked out and miniaturized, ie, we need a good way to beam the signals through the skull... but nothing really hard.
And implanted technology has been shown to be effective. Monkeys can control robotic arms, terminally ill patients (FDA is a bit more lenient with health concerns if they only have a week to live) have been able to control a cursor on a computer screen.
Because the electrodes are small - and can be made smaller - very few neurons are involved, so the number of keys (or axis) can be made very large.
I suppose this might allow a slight increase in the potential of a gamer, so it would end up in gaming use. Because, hey, if you have a neural interface, why should you rest your hand on WADS? All you'd have to do is write a little device driver so that the computer thinks your mindchip2000 is a mouse/keyboard, and you can play any game you want.
I don't expect that this level of interface would be substantially different from the level of control enabled by a 2x-analog-stick controller, and I don't think it'd change the level of immersion from what one gets if one is familiar with said physical control device.
It might allow a bit faster reaction, perhaps a hundred milliseconds, than with a handheld controller (the signal transmission distance is smaller), so would probably provide a slightly extended market for the neural interface companies: professional gamers.
**************
The next logical extension of this technology, one which (AFAIK) there have not been any developments in, is feedback from the computer. This would start out simple - telling the brain how it has moved the cursor - which would increase the level of control over the system. (compare an analog stick, which doesn't inform the user how far the look-direction has been changed, with a mouse)
Giving signals to the brain is old hat anymore; see cochlear implants.
It could probably be extended to providing visual feedback - I'm thinking direct stimulation of the visual cortex - but there's really very little reason to do so. Unless you let the brain-chip stimulation hog all the available cortex while simultaneously blocking input from the eyes, you won't get better resolution or color quality than a computer screen. So retraining the brain to use the fake stimulation instead of the real deal would be hard to reverse, I think. Which isn't so bad, really, in a way: I would like an eye (eh, head-mounted-camera) with a zoom function.
*************************
My conclusion? The implications for the state of the individual human organism are very large (the rise of cyborgs), the implications for society boil down to fewer repetitive stress injuries from typing, the implications for gaming as an art form are pretty damn small.
But, yeah, I think controlling games with the mind will catch on - because implanted tech will soon be better than a mouse&keyboard and neural interfaces have so many other (pragmatic) uses.
