The world of 2155 is a dizzying mix of cutting-edge and antique systems. Biotechnology, AI, material science, and the emerging power of nanotechnology make for a world that has been radically changed by technological advances. Yet it is observed that, in many respects, the year 2155 isn’t nearly as transformed as many thought it would be over a century earlier. Nanotechnology turned out to be much more difficult than anyone expected. Material-fabrication methods have evolved fairly slowly. And a posthuman singularity, where AIs become thousands of times smarter than humans, still has yet to happen.
While the 21st century has been marked by seemingly radical transformations, the pace of innovation has actually been slower than in previous decades. Moore’s Law, the observation that computer systems were speeding up at a consistent rate, fell in the 2030s, as fundamental physical limits on traditional methods of computation were finally reached, and newer methods – optical, quantum, and nanocomputing – were still in early stages of development. The struggle between those who wished to protect the rights of content owners and distributors and those who wished to maximize intellectual freedom was won decisively by the protectors, with the largely unanticipated side effect of greatly slowing down software innovation. Even biotechnology, which in 2155 has transformed the notion of human identity, progressed far more slowly than expected as fears about cloning, genetically modified foods, and transgenic experimentation led to laws that greatly restricted research in the first few decades of the century.
Several forces masked this more-measured pace of change. The first was the explosion in space technologies, which made the 21st century truly feel like a step into the future. A significant portion of the global economy in the 2030s to 2050s was dedicated to the move off-world. The second mask was the development of economically viable nuclear fusion, which reshaped the nature of global politics, urban design, warfare, and economics. The reverberations of this invention are still being felt.
Finally, the rapid growth in the economic and social conditions of many developing nations proved a powerful engine for the global economy. New markets emerged left and right, and even if the pace of technological change was more measured in the most-advanced countries, it was accelerating like never before across the rest of the world. Only as the 22nd century approached had the speed of transformation begun to slow in the developing states, raising questions about the future of the global economy.
Technology in the developing world is a mix of old systems, new systems, and new systems that look like old systems. Poorer nations have long histories of receiving second- and third-hand products discarded by the more advanced states, and then given the task of figuring out how to integrate and maintain them. Vehicles, weapons, computers, even consumer goods dating back 30, 40, even 50 years are easily found in use in the developing world. Equipment older than that has often been retrofitted and updated with more recent technology.
Newer production methods and materials can make older designs nearly as good as the most-cutting-edge system. Methods for increasing tensile strength, decreasing weight, and adding computer “smarts” to cheap components are mature production techniques in 2155, widely available and inexpensive. New systems are integrated with older protocols in order to maintain compatibility, reduce costs, or simply to meet consumer preferences.
The pace of change in the Fifth Wave world results in many products discarded simply because they are “obsolete.” In general terms, obsolete gear still works, but may not work as well as more-recent designs. The main advantage of older, discarded gear is the reduced price.
Equipment listed at list price, unless otherwise specified, can be assumed to be at or near the top of currently available technology. Older versions of these items can still be found, especially in the developing world. The degree to which older models are significantly less capable and less expensive depends upon how many generations old they are. Markets in the developing world generally sell gear that is one to three generations older than current models.
Older devices can be found, but are sold in junkyards, auctions, and the like. Equipment that the GM deems critical to the setting – whether AIs, bioshells, weapons, or something else – should be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Equipment one generation old is 10 to 20% less effective than current versions. The simplest way of reflecting this is to increase the device’s weight, although the downgrade can apply to any combination of range, functional life, weight, speed, complexity, specific attribute ratings, or the like. The price will be a similar degree lower than new models.
Equipment that is two generations old is 20 to 40% less effective and expensive than current models.
Equipment that is three generations old is 40 to 60% less effective and less expensive than current designs.
Equipment older than three generations will follow this same general pattern. In all cases, the GM should apply logic in determining whether a given reduction in effectiveness is worth an equivalent reduction in price.
The speed of generation updates depends on whether the technology is considered Cutting-Edge, Established, or Mature. Note that even if the overall generation of a technology doesn’t change often, new models can come out with added features, improved designs, or bug-fixes.
These are systems or devices still subject to rapid change. New breakthroughs in design or implementation happen frequently, and sometimes whole protocols or networks have to be overhauled to meet new specifications. New generations of these systems come out about every two years. Cutting-edge technologies include 3D-universal printers, biofacs, all nanotechnologies, and microbot swarms. Most software also falls into this category.
These are systems or devices still subject to change, but at a slower pace. This may be because the production techniques and underlying science are well-understood, there is a widespread support infrastructure difficult to change, or the market for these systems is no longer profitable enough to push innovation. New generations come out about every eight years. Established technologies include computers, wearable virtual interfaces, implants, and most biotechnologies.
These are systems or devices that change slowly. This is largely because there are few performance improvements possible without a substantial breakthrough, or because a new technology has made this type obsolete. New generations of these systems come out about every 30 years. Mature technologies include energy cells, cyberwear, radio communicators, and slug-thrower weapons.
In 2155, many objects are not bought, they’re licensed for limited-time use. Most license agreements require the purchase of an update at the license period’s end if the licensee wishes to continue using the item. Updates range from minor bug fixes to a full replacement; in the latter case, the original item must be returned to the manufacturer. Updates cost 10 to 30% of the original purchase cost.
If a user allows a licensed-use period to run out, the shutdown code is engaged, and the device stops working. The shutdown does not come without warning; the user will receive warnings at 1 month, 1 week, 1 day, 1 hour, 10 minutes, and 1 minute prior to shutdown. Most shutdown warnings come with an interactive message informing the user where or how an update may be purchased.
Tools and software to hack shutdown codes are readily available. Most just reset the shutdown clock, although some allow the hacker to move the shutdown date closer. These hacking systems are commonplace but very illegal – they can be found within 24 hours in any major city with a Streetwise or Scrounging roll +3, or within an hour on the web with a Computer Operations roll.
Items actually implanted into the user’s body are not allowed to have mandatory shutdown code by international regulation. However, they may have so-called “annoyware” messages, informing the user that new systems are available. These can also be removed with easy-to-use, but illegal, hacking software.
Beta gear represents experimental technology or designs, and is designed with advantages over conventional designs. However, being experimental, it usually doesn’t work exactly as designed. Cautious developers try to get the test devices to a usably stable configuration, although rapid design cycles and market competition sometimes leads to unstable beta releases. It’s not usual for a company to contact its testers, asking them to bring in the beta gear to get a mid-test upgrade or bug fix. Early beta devices are typically less reliable than late beta.
Beta-test systems are either hardware or software; anything for which there is room for significant design improvement can be subject to beta tests. The fear of ruined reputations is enough to cause many companies to do beta tests of nearly everything they make. If the GM wishes to use beta gear in his game, he should design it beforehand, using the following guidelines:
Improved – The system provides generally improved performance over an existing equivalent design. The ratings of the system are intended to be 10 to 50% better in one to three categories of functions.
Combined – The system combines the function of two or three other devices. The ratings of the combined system will typically be 75 to 110% of the equivalent component.
New – The system provides entirely new functionality, which may overlap with an existing device.
Roll three dice. A result of 3 means that the device works at peak expectations; 4-8, device functions at average expectations; 9-12, device functions at minimal expectations; 13-16, device functions below expectations; 17 or higher, the device does not function; 18 or higher, the device functions but may fail catastrophically. Roll 3d again: on an 18 there is a catastrophic failure – the device explodes, or erases non-test software, or the like. Add +1 to the die roll if the device is in early beta; -1 from the die roll if the device is in late beta. Add +1 to the die roll if the device is a Combined system; +2 to the die roll if the device is a New system.
In general, there are two ways to get around content-right-management (CRM) systems: alter the content or alter the player. Content that has been hacked is usable on any appropriate system, but there are no guarantees of the stability or accuracy of the hacked material. Devices that have had their CRM systems hacked can use any unmodified content, but are only temporarily useful. To make matters worse, the hacks may not function properly – shoddy work, system conflicts, and “Trojan hacks” used by the WTO can all alert local authorities to piracy in progress.
“Hackware” has had its content-rights-management code altered or removed. Much of the cracked content on the TSA Web has been hacked in this manner. Pirates sometimes attempt to improve content, to make it faster, able to run on less complex hardware, or more enjoyable. Hacked content may also be a WTO “Trojan hack,” designed to look like a real piece of hackware but actually sending a message to the WTO, which in turn notifies local law enforcement. Finally, downloaded material can simply fail to operate properly. Roll 3d for each potential problem; each occurs on a roll of 18.
Rather than trusting downloaded hackware, a skilled programmer may choose to alter the content himself. Not all content lends itself to being hacked easily, however. The more expensive the content, the harder it is to crack. This is a Computer Programming task. Commercial content (software, InVid and music files, and consumer minifac designs) is usually at -3 to -7 difficulty. Non-commercial content, particularly private or secure materials, can be up to -12.
Rather than attempting to alter a single piece of digital content, a hacker may wish to make his device play or use all appropriate content without doing a CRM check. Hot mod is the term for a piece of equipment modified to ignore CRM checks. Hot-mod hardware and software are relatively inexpensive, but typically only work for a short time before upgrades to CRM systems make them unable to play or use new material. Hot mods are designed to be undetectable when used, although some CRM updates may catch older hot mods and automatically report the user to local authorities. Hot mods are illegal in most jurisdictions.
A hardware hot mod is the direct modification of a system’s hardware to avoid CRM checks or to fake CRM results. Hardware hot mods are more reliable and harder to detect than software ones, but are difficult to do successfully. They must be updated annually; if not updated, an attempt to play or use any content will fail and send out an alert on a roll of 18. The failure roll drops by 1 every year. Hot-modding a piece of hardware is an Electronic Engineer -5 task taking 24 hours total; it costs $500. If the hacker fails the task roll by 1, the modification will appear to work, but will fail and send out an alert on a roll of 18.
Software hot mods attempt to fool the device’s CRM system into allowing unauthorized material. A software hot mod must be updated every three months; if not updated, an attempt to play or use the device will fail and send out an alert on a roll of 18. Every three months without an update reduces the failure roll by 1 (e.g., if not updated in one year, the hot mod will fail on a roll of 15 or higher). Also, any update to the device’s operating system will break the hot mod. Creating a software hot mod takes five hours and is a Computer Programming -3 task. The hot mod is Complexity 1. If purchased from the black market, software hot mods usually cost $100.
Black box hot mods radically alter a device, removing all traces of CRM functionality, updates, and reporting technology. This is generally illegal, and very easily noticed, but is simpler than a hot mod (Electronic Engineer -3 task taking 8 hours); it generally costs $200. Any software on the device must be custom-written for the black box (to play content without requiring updates), requiring a Computer Programming -3 task and two hours. If the hacker fails the hardware task, however, the device is destroyed, and on a critical failure it also alerts authorities! Software failures have no worse consequence than rendering the device unusable; try again! Premade software usually costs $100. A 'black box' modded device thus generally costs $300 plus the cost of the device itself on the black market, and has no communications functionality at all.