Whatever...

World Cup 2014, technologies on the football pitch

By Anne-Hélène Piet

Less than a month from the beginning of the World Cup on June 12^th in São Paulo, Brazil, it’s been announced that certain technological innovations will be a part of the games. Indeed, ahead of the first match to kick-off between Brazil and Croatia, a young paraplegic person will, with the aid of a mind-controlled exo-skeleton, take a kick of the ball in the opening ceremony. Moreover, for the first time in the history of the World Cup, FIFA will allow the use of goal-line control technology, a system which includes 14 high speed cameras located at every corner of the football pitch, filming to accurately determine if a ball has crossed the goal line. If a player scores a legitimate goal, the referee will receive confirmation via their watch. This equipment will help them make the right decisions and avoid discussions or angry situations as has happened in previous World Cup tournaments.

Last but not least, the official ball has been once again designed by Adidas and named ‘Brazuca’. The German supplier chose the 2014 World Cup to introduce its prototype ‘Brazucam’, featuring six HD cameras with an image stabiliser to give a unique view inside the game to improve fans’ experience but also for team managers. Although this ball won’t be used for official games in 2014, one can imagine an advanced version for future World Cups.

I wonder what other technologies we’ll see in future tournaments? Perhaps players with cameras embedded in their sportswear. A report conducted by Futurizon for HTC also claims that by 2020, players will be equipped with accelerometers in their shoes that are able to precisely measure speed and performance, and the ball will feature impact sensors to measure trajectory. All this information will then be provided to referees, players and managers to be analysed in order to improve the game.

Since 2006, an international robotic tournament called ’Robocup‘ has been organised every year and aims to create a robotic football team able to beat a human world champion team by 2050.

With these innovations, we can wonder if human referees and players will even be on the football pitch in future. From my perspective, even if improvements in equipment can be argued to make the game better, there is something to be said for being careful that technologies don’t have an adverse impact on competition and sporting spirit.

Some gamers are gay. Get over it.

By Mike Marquiss

With more than a cartful of beloved characters, Nintendo is everyone’s favourite family friendly video games company. That’s why seeing Nintendo in the news this week  for its controversial decision not to allow gay video game characters in Tomodachi Life, an upcoming life simulator game, came as such a shock to many. 

Apologies to anyone out there who’s looking for a ‘Make your own Mario effigy’ guide, I’m not here to admonish Nintendo (for the most part), nor defend it. There’s plenty of that elsewhere. What interests me is why the issue of gay characters and storylines in video games makes headline news on such a regular basis. Why are we still debating the issue? Will the video games industry ever ‘grow up’ to the point where we can move on? Or does it simply reflect a society that has yet to do so?

Gaming holds a unique position in the wider technology industry, which is what our blogs generally cover. As opposed to Software Defined Networking or IT security, video games are creative endeavours and human by nature. It involves cutting edge technological development of course, but it’s also a product and reflection of the society in which it has been developed. Watch Dogs for instance, Ubisoft’s next blockbuster title, is set in a dystopian and fantastical Chicago, yet in many ways is indicative of today’s post-Snowden world, unwittingly so perhaps. 

But ‘What does this have to do with Nintendo?’ you ask. Well, I’m getting to that.

Nintendo’s decision not to allow gay relationships IS indicative of... something. However much the company says Tomodachi Life was "never intended to make any form of social commentary" (which is almost certainly the case), it does suggest that maybe, just maybe, Tomodachi Life’s developers weren’t ready to tackle the subject of homosexuality, or didn’t feel the need to. Did they really not recognise this massive sub-section of its user base or did they simply choose to create a game that excludes some players from playing it in the way they want, one that might reflect how they actually live their lives? God forbid they should do so in a life simulation video game! 

I don’t believe that every video game has to tackle every social issue, nor would I buy an Xbox version of Question Time, but I believe games should be held to a higher standard, especially when we’re talking of mass exclusion and prejudice. On that note, I’ll leave the final words to Yannick LeJacq, taken from his excellent Guardian article. 

“...let me play the part of a concerned friend once more and say: come on, Nintendo. You're better than this. And it doesn't seem like you have much more to lose anyway.”

 

Is size really everything in the world of film viewing?

By Flora Haslam

Fancy watching a film on your phone just 18 days after release?  And paying less than if you watch it on your TV?

At a recent event in Beverly Hills, Jeffrey Katzenberg, CEO of Dreamworks Animation (the studio behind films like Shrek, Kung Fu Panda and the more recent, but somewhat less successful, Mr Peabody & Sherman), made some interesting predictions for the future of the industry.

Katzenburg proposed that on the eighteenth day after release, movies will be available ubiquitously, and – critically – film fans will pay different prices depending on the device from which they are viewing. 

The pricing model he suggested was $15 (£9) per film for a movie-sized screen, $4 (£2.40) for a 75in (190cm) TV and $1.99 (£1.20) for a smartphone.

Given that 95 percent of the revenue from 98 percent of movies is earned in the first three weeks in cinemas, this seems to make sense, and I’d certainly be reluctant to pay much to watch any film on a four inch screen. 

What is less obvious is how this would be enforced.  Right now, it’s unclear how the industry could confirm the screen size in order to make the right charge.

In the meantime, I’m off to the cinema – no point waiting 18 days!