Are Nintendo a software update away from the Virtual Boy Mk2?

The Nintendo Switch has only been out for a few weeks, but we're already wondering what's next from Nintendo. Officially, at least, the Switch is devoid of virtual reality capabilities, but, as we find out, that may not be the case forever

For the first major video games company to release a virtual reality headset, Nintendo sure has been reluctant to join the VR bandwagon now the technology has returned.

Back in 1995, the company released Virtual Boy, the headset that the company’s marketing materials promised would transport the wearer to a new dimension, but in reality provided headache-inducing stereoscopic 3D in a rather hellish combination of red and black.

Yet despite being a critical and commercial failure, the product ensured that Nintendo’s name was firmly tied to virtual reality. So when VR returned as a viable option a few years ago, many were keen to know if the Virtual Boy would be making a comeback.

Sadly, Nintendo had other ideas. The company made little acknowledgement of the rising interest in VR and, when it did speak of the technology, largely expressed scepticism, such as in a talk by Mario creator Shigeru Miyamoto during a 2015 investor meeting.

“Many demonstrations for virtual reality devices have been conducted at recent trade shows, and at this year’s E3, I noticed a number of dream-like demonstrations for which the schedule and format for commercialisation are unknown,” the Nintendo legend said.

However, now the Nintendo Switch is a reality, that scepticism appears to be changing.

Nintendo hints at VR planning

In mid-2016 Miyamoto made several comments on Twitter that caused excitement among VR-curious Nintendo fans.

“I heard VR was a hot topic at #E3, so I went to check it out. It was on display, but it wasn’t what I expected,” he wrote in Japanese, with a translation by user Cheesemeister3k. “We’re also researching VR, so we have the core technology.”

This was a big deal. For the first time a senior member in Nintendo was confirming the company was seriously researching virtual reality, suggesting that the company was interested in jumping on the VR bandwagon.

However, Nintendo has never been a company that does things just because everyone else in the industry is doing them. It’s an approach that has at times proved immensely frustrating for fans, but has endured due to the company remaining utterly distinct at a time when triple-A games have sometimes looked highly homogenised.

And it seems that its approach to VR is no different. Miyamoto’s focus appeared to be on making VR work for the Nintendo way of doing things, and he did express some concerns about how this would work.

“Long play sessions are an issue. We want to release something that can be played for long periods, carries value, and is affordable. We want parents to feel at ease.”

This mentality was further confirmed by Nintendo president Tatsumi Kimishima, who in February 2017 told The Nikkei that the company was “studying” VR.

“If we are able to resolve the issues with playing [VR] comfortably for long hours, we will support it in one form or another,” he said.

Nintendo experiments with head-mounted displays

In December 2016, a few short weeks before Nintendo hosted a Direct where it laid out details of its new console, a host of patents related to the Switch were published.

For the most part, the slew of diagrams and supporting text confirmed what most were expecting: Nintendo’s new console was a portable-console hybrid, transitioning between multiple configurations to allow numerous styles of play. But in amongst the careful explanations of the many controller configurations and attachments was something unexpected: a head-mounted display with an unmistakable similarity to the various smartphone-enabled virtual reality devices currently on the market.

Clearly Nintendo had done a bit more than just research VR

Clearly Nintendo had done a bit more than just research VR: the company had given serious thought to how the Switch might be made to work as an HMD. And by the looks of things, it would simply be a matter of sliding the main device into a supporting headset.

“Fig. 60 is a diagram showing an example HMD accessory to which the main unit can be attached. An HMD accessory shown in Fig. 60 includes a housing and belts. One end of the belt is attached to one end of the housing, and one end of the belt is attached to the other end of the housing,” the accompanying text said, in suitably dry patent language.

“Although not shown in the figure, the other end of the belt can be removably connected to the other end of the belt. Thus, the housing can be mounted on the head of the user by connecting together the two belts around the head of the user. Note that there is no particular limitation on the mechanism for allowing the HMD accessory to be mounted on the head of the user.”

Consider the Switch’s controllers for a second

In January 2017, Nintendo finally confirmed details of the Switch, and in doing so also showcased the final piece of the puzzle that would make it truly viable as a virtual reality console: the Joycon controllers. Designed to attach to the sides of the touchscreen for on-the-go gaming, or be removed and used as either motion or conventional controllers, these unconventional devices have elicited mixed reactions from users.

However, whether you see them as an ill-conceived attempt to revive the Wii, or an awesome solution to portable gaming, the fact remains that they would be great with VR.

“The Joycon can convey to you the feeling of ice cubes colliding in a cup,” said Switch producer Yoshiaki Koizumi during the Direct. “They can even tell the number of ice cubes in a glass, and you can feel water filling the glass. This new sense of realism is produced by the precision of HD Rumble.”

As revelations as about controllers go, it didn’t exactly thrill many of the gaming hardcore. But for VR it could be something else. The standard for VR controllers is effectively already motion controllers, but the added HD Rumble could add a whole extra tier of realism to the world of VR.

You heard it here first

Although virtual reality is not officially a part of the Switch’s future, it’s clear that Nintendo is keeping its options open when it comes to VR. And as and when it does decide to add such functionality to the console, it will simply be a matter of releasing the headset as a new accessory and providing a simple software update.

One issue, of course, is power: the Switch would not be a particularly powerful console for virtual reality, and so would likely be on a par with smartphone-based systems rather than anything more powerful.

However, there is undoubtedly a market for a family focused virtual reality system, and Nintendo certainly could fill that niche. The company could even play into the appeal of the retro, by styling the headset like the original Virtual Boy.

With all this in mind, I’m taking the unusual step of ending this article with a series of predictions, because despite Nintendo’s often erratic business practices, it seems very likely that – barring the collapse of the virtual reality industry – the Switch will support VR at some point in the future.

First, I predict that the Switch will have some form of VR support by the end of 2018. This will give Nintendo adequate time to establish the console before adding additional features, but also takes into account the shorter generations that the company appears to be pursuing.

Next, Nintendo will offer two styles of headset: one that is styled in line with the Switch hardware, and another that will be styled like the Virtual Boy. The latter will be available only as a limited run, and most fans will end up paying far more than the retail price as, like the recently released Classic Mini NES, it will be sold out pretty much everywhere.

And finally, Nintendo will offer a VR gaming experience unlike that explored by any other company. Because it wouldn’t be Nintendo if it didn’t offer something completely different than the norm.

Advances in genetic technologies mean that it could soon be possible to de-extinct our closest relative. But even if we can, does that mean we should? We investigate

45,000 years ago our species was not alone on this planet. Alongside us, Homo sapiens, was a second member of our genus, Homo neanderthalensis, with its own tools, society and cultural practices.

At one time it is thought that there were around 70,000 Neanderthals living on Earth, mainly in what we now know as Europe and southwest and central Asia. How much our species interacted with this sapient cousin is not fully known, but there was certainly some interbreeding: while Neanderthals are long deceased, their DNA lives on in many Europeans and Asians.

But now, with the advances of genetic technologies, Neanderthals could return. Recent advances of gene editing tools such as CRISPR, as well as the sequencing of DNA taken from the bone of a female Neanderthal who is thought to have walked the Earth some 50,000-100,000 years ago, mean that what was once pure science fiction could soon become a reality.

Legendary geneticist George Church, the Robert Winthrop Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School who is currently spearheading the project to de-extinct the woolly mammoth, has said that he thinks the de-extinction of Neanderthals will occur in his lifetime.

“The reason I would consider it a possibility is that a bunch of technologies are developing faster than ever before,” he told Spiegel Online in 2013. “In particular, reading and writing DNA is now about a million times faster than seven or eight years ago. Another technology that the de-extinction of a Neanderthal would require is human cloning.

“We can clone all kinds of mammals, so it’s very likely that we could clone a human. Why shouldn’t we be able to do so?”

Bringing Neanderthals back from the dead

When we consider de-extincting Neanderthals, it is important to note that we would not be bringing back a precise, perfect copy of the Neanderthals that lived on Earth up until their extinction some 40,000 years ago.

As Douglas McCauley, assistant professor in the University of California Santa Barbara’s Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, explains, the question of whether we can bring Neanderthals back from extinction “depends upon how much of a purist you are about the definition of Neanderthal”.

I expect we will be more interested in engineering bigger brains than bigger brow ridges

In the simplest terms, any scientists who set out to de-extinct Neanderthals will do so by cobbling together modern human and extinct Neanderthal DNA.

“The technique that many de-extinction scientists are now using to bring back extinct species is to sequence the genome of the dead species – line it up next to the genome of the nearest living relative – then use CRISPR gene editing techniques to modify elements of the genome of the living relative to approximate elements of the genome of the dead species,” explains McCauley.

This is the approach being taken by the Harvard team currently attempting to de-extinct the woolly mammoth.

“Here they are using the genome of the extinct woolly mammoth and the genome of a living Asian elephant. The goal, however, isn’t to bring back a perfect replica of the woolly mammoth. A success would be to genetically engineer a hairy, cold-tolerant Asian elephant.

“This would also remain the same strategy for any group attempting to bring back a Neanderthal. Again, this would be more like engineering increased Neanderthal-ness into the human genome – not like cranking out a carbon copy of a Neanderthal.”

This approach should be technically possible for Neanderthals in the near future. But, as McCauley explains, that doesn’t mean it will actually happen.

“Technically engineering more Neanderthal into the human genome will indeed be possible very soon,” he says. “Practically, I don’t really see this happening. People will most certainly use CRISPR and next-generation gene editing techniques to edit the human genome – but I think this is much more likely to be tuning humans up, rather than tuning down.

“I expect we will be more interested in engineering bigger brains than bigger brow ridges.”

Criteria for de-extinction

De-extinction is, in general, a topic that is set to be the subject of ever-greater discussion in the coming years, as hypothetical concepts become scientific reality.

“It is on the precipice of moving from a crazy idea we once mused about over coffee, to a real possibility we can actually make happen in the lab. From science fiction to real science,” summarises McCauley.

However, with such abilities come significant moral questions. De-extinction could be a vital tool for conservation, but it could also be used to produce creatures that are more reminiscent of science fiction horror stories than of scientific value.

As a result, efforts are already being made to build a moral framework within which de-extinction scientists can work. As part of this, McCauley authored a paper along with several colleagues that recommended using three specific criteria for the selection of candidates for the de-extinction process.

“I am a conservation biologist and an ecologist. The three criteria we issued were created from that vantage point: what species would we bring back if we genuinely wanted de-extinction to combat the ecological crisis being created by the ongoing human-driven mass extinction?” he explains.

“We suggested recovering species that: 1) performed ecological jobs that were highly unique and were not replicated by other surviving species; 2) recent extinctions for which the technological and ecological barriers for recovery and restoration were lower; and 3) species that we could meaningfully recover to historic levels of abundance.”

If following this approach, scientists would therefore favour species to de-extinct that could not only fulfil a role in the ecosystem that another species had not taken over, but were likely made extinct fairly recently and would survive and flourish in the current environment. And under these criteria, Neanderthals would be a poor choice.

“Neanderthals most importantly fail the first test,” explains McCauley. “Their ecology is very similar to another species that survived and thrived – our own.

“To put it bluntly, from a conversation biologists point of view: the last thing our planet needs right now is more hungry Hominids.”

Neanderthal revival: the moral issue

This is not to say, as some have suggested, that Neanderthals would pose any particular threat to modern humans.

“Quite the opposite,” argues McCauley. “The greatest challenge would be keeping de-extincted Neanderthals alive and safe from us, not worrying about them taking over.”

As these newly engineered Neanderthals would not be true replicas of their past equivalents, they would be likely to suffer from genetic issues, as well as being potentially highly ill-suited to the human-occupied modern world.

There are likely to be a host of developmental issues associated with looking after imperfectly genetically re-engineered Neanderthals

“There are likely to be a host of developmental issues associated with looking after imperfectly genetically re-engineered Neanderthals (e.g. birth defects), they are likely to be quite susceptible to modern disease, and it is unclear what habitats they would slot back into,” he adds. “Our species has taken over all of the once prime habitat of Neanderthals.”

Then there is the matter of Neanderthals’ original demise; something that could easily play out again if we were to bring back a group of the species. It’s hard to see the scientific value of de-extincting a species that would be at high risk of quickly becoming extinct again.

“It is important to remember that we likely played an important role in the original extinction of Neanderthals,” explains McCauley. “We competed heavily with them for food and homes and we may have given them lethal diseases. Reviving Neanderthals might simply be an act of recreating history.”

Value in de-extinction

For McCauley, there is currently no circumstance under which bringing back Neanderthals would be a good idea. But that does not mean that de-extinction as a wider practice does not have value – in fact, it could offer significant benefits, provided we select the right species to focus on.

“There is a very long list of other species that I think would be smarter to bring back before we started in on Neanderthals,” he says.

“As an ecologist that looks out at a world with species being driven extinct in all directions around us, I am all ears for smart new conservation tools.

“The challenge here will be carefully selecting targets that meaningfully help the planet, not using this new-found power to create oddities for zoos or bio-bazaar.”

School will use facial analysis to identify students who are dozing off

In September the ESG business school in Paris will begin using artificial intelligence and facial analysis to determine whether students are paying attention in class. The school says the technology will be used to improve performance of students and professors.

Source: The Verge

Company offers free training for coal miners to become wind farmers

A Chinese wind-turbine maker wants American workers to retrain and become wind farmers. The training program was announced at an energy conference in Wyoming, where the American arm of Goldwind, a Chinese wind-turbine manufacturer is located.

Source: Quartz

Google AI defeats human Go champion

Google's DeepMind AI AlphaGo has defeated the world's number one Go player Ke Jie. AlphaGo secured the victory after winning the second game in a three-part match. DeepMind founder Demis Hassabis said Ke Jie "pushed AlphaGo right to the limit".

Source: BBC

Vegan burgers that taste like real meat to hit Safeway stores

Beyond Meat, which promises its plant-based burgers bleed and sizzle like real ground beef and is backed by investors like Bill Gates, will begin distributing its plant-based burgers in more than 280 Safeway stores in California, Hawaii and Nevada.

Source: Bloomberg

The brain starts to eat itself after chronic sleep deprivation

Brain cells that destroy and digest worn-out cells and debris go into overdrive in mice that are chronically sleep-deprived. The discovery could explain why a chronic lack of sleep puts people at risk of neurological disorders like Alzheimer’s disease.

Source: New Scientist

"We can still act and it won’t be too late," says Obama

Former US President Barack Obama has written an op-ed piece in the Guardian giving his views on some of the greatest challenges facing the world – food and climate change – and what we can do about them. "We can still act and it won’t be too late," writes Obama.

Source: The Guardian