Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kanluwen wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:I take it you didn't read the article at all?

Untapped Potential
Boring technical minutiae aside, does it make any difference? The first titles certainly make it hard to tell.

Playing with the Move feels a lot like playing with the Wii. You punch, your character punches. You swing, your character swings. You dive, your character dives. There’s an extra degree of accuracy, to be sure, but the experience of playing feels much the same.

The real potential might still be left untapped by programmers still stuck in the groove of the Wii.

Anton fires up a technical demo. It takes a live feed of you standing in front of the TV and superimposes virtual objects into your hand. The remote becomes a mallet, a globe, a sword. And every single motion translates fluidly to the screen. You can take a ping-pong paddle and twist it around in your hand, watching the item do the same.

The Wii cannot do this.

In another demo, one controller turns into a spinning tube of clay on screen. The other controller deforms it like a finger on a virtual pottery wheel. In yet another, Anton effortlessly repositions images like posters in 3D space. He can even twist and bend them as if they’re real. After slapping a few down, he turns one controller into a virtual camera, looking around his newly created virtual living room as if he were there, while moving things around with his other hand. You could open a door with one hand and peek behind it with another. Take things apart naturally in 3D space without touching a mouse. Shoot 3D movies the same way you shoot real movies, without awkward camera controls.

So yes, currently there may be no noticable difference in use, but the technology behind the Move works quite differently, which was my point.

Don't need to read an article when I've used the bloody thing and have been following the technical specs on it since it was first announced.

"The technology behind the Move" is for all intents and purposes, the exact same as the Wiimote. Seriously. This is not news, nor was it ever. Sony's well-known for ripping off other people's ideas, repackaging them as an exclusive to their brand, and then using it as long as they can get away with it(Dual Shock anyone?).

Wii - IR system in which the controller tracks the relative position of the immobile console, in providing it with position, acceleration and angle data.

Move - camera that follows the position of the controller, and serves the additional purposes of providing overlay video and facial recognition.

I'm not advocating one or the other - IMO the Wii option is cheaper and that'd be my preference... but technologically they're the opposite of each other and even that is a very basic and essentially incorrect statement. It's the opposite if you call the Wiimote's IR beam a 'camera' - and in purpose it basically it is.
Hence, it's an addition to the Eyetoy that was already capable of tracking head and limited body positions. It's basically a reverse-Wiimote but the motion-tracking idea had already been implemented. I don't see how there's anything wrong with Sony saying, "Hey, we had this first and we just made it better."

Ugh Kan, really?

Games Workshop AND Microsoft?

Actually I think the Kinect is just as stupid, so...

OK, there's hope for you yet then!

I don't really mind or care too much. (now play some real games! 40K, LOTR etc. Only joking, but again, i'm not too bothered.)

If this works like it says it does here
then I may have to have a go on this. That and they need to get it working with a cricket game pronto.

Just had a go earlier at a demo station, and I must say I was impressed with it.

Much better then the Wii and the graphics were good. (not the best, but then again it isn't a pc)

In Europe we've already sold 1.5 million units of Move.

Here is a couple of nice videos I did of some behind the scenes tech demos and stuff.

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/09/page/9/

Playstation Move and Kinect will both be failures when all is said and done IMHO. The main reason for this is because both are rather pricey add-ons to an already pricey system and history has shown that these type of add-ons, regardless of what they do, are failures because they effectively splinter the customer base into households that have the Move/Kinect and those that do not.

When a developer is looking to develop a new game, if they have to make a choice between making something that can run ONLY using Move/Kinect or something that can run using Move/Kinect OR using a standard D-Pad, they'll always go for the latter to make sure they can sell the game to as many households as possible.

The problem with that is, 9 times out of 10 if a developer isn't forced to focus on utilizing the motion controls for their game, the end product almost always ends up being sub-par...95% of Wii games are a perfect testament to this fact.


At the end of the day, motion controls are a gimmick, but a gimmick that appeals to a huge swathe of people who haven't grown up learning the 'language' of a console controller.

You see, I know picking up an Xbox 360 controller instantly how to control a character in a 3D space, using the Left stick to move around and the Right stick to look around. This concept is now second nature to me (and probably you). But to most people, this is NOT something they have been learning and practicing, so they can struggle with even this most basic concept, and once you're struggling with just moving your character around FORGET about trying to remember what each of the 8 buttons/triggers do in the game!

Motion controls obviously appeal to these people who really struggle with the 'language' of a controller. But the problem is, for the type of games that most 'gamers' play, motion controls cannot ever be a good substitute. For example, Sony was trying to push that you could use Move to control the new SOCOM game, and that it was perfectly accurate to use. And while I'm sure that's true, the fact is, any kind of motion control set-up means that you have to hold the controller AT the screen in order to aim. And this means your wrist and arm will eventually get WAY more tired than using a standard controller, whether it takes 5 minutes or an hour to do so, the fact is, using the motion controller eventually becomes a detriment to your gaming experience.

Motion Controls ultimately can and only will be good for very, very specific gaming experiences, but the gaming industry is still trying to figure out exactly what that is. To a gamer like me, the fact that all the gaming companies are wasting time and resources on developing and promoting these motion controls systems is a giant slap in the face to a gamer like me. I LIKE the games they make now. I want them to keep spending their money making THOSE games. Video Gaming was already a bigger industry than TV or movies BEFORE motion control hit the scene, so why are Sony and Microsoft chasing Nintendo now?

So what if the Wii sells WAY more consoles than the Xbox360 or PS3? From my experience, most people who own Wiis buy very few games and play even less of those games that they purchase regularly. Most people I know with a Wii are STILL playing Wii Sports for gods sake!

I think Sony and Microsoft should have waited for their next generation of consoles to include motion controls standard (as we all know they will), or at least waited until they could release their motion control devices at a VERY cheap price point. But the expense of both Move and Kinect will doom them to failure I'm afraid, besides the fact that...people who like motion controls already own a Wii, and there are absolutely NO killer apps on either system that necessitate buying them!


Truth be told, I am considering buying a Kinect JUST because it supposedly auto-recognizes your face and signs you into Xbox Live when you turn on the system, and the fact that you'll be able to browse through your movie titles without using a remote. Both of which, if they work, sound pretty cool to me. But I have seen NOTHING game-wise that makes me even remotely interested in playing with either Kinect or Move because I generally don't want to flail my body around to play my video games when it doesn't add anything to the experience!

And at $150, I have a hard time justifying picking up a Kinect just for those couple of nifty perks. So until I see something more to sell me, I'm not getting either.

SingStar and Buzz have been massive successes that depend on specialist controllers, Guitar Hero too.

However these are all games that appeal to non-gamer audiences much more than hardcore gamers.

I agree the standard controller is better for hardcore gamer type games. It is a big barrier to non-gamers.

The casual market makes up in numbers what it lacks in fervour.

My brother used to buy about a game a month. Casual gamers probably buy about a game a year.

Games like SingStar and Buzz, that allow easy downloading of extra content, give casual gamers a different kind of game experience (we call it Social Gaming in Sony) and download content in drips and draps. It adds up to a lot of revenue because of the large number of casual gamers.

Kilkrazy wrote:SingStar and Buzz have been massive successes that depend on specialist controllers, Guitar Hero too.

However these are all games that appeal to non-gamer audiences much more than hardcore gamers.

I agree the standard controller is better for hardcore gamer type games. It is a big barrier to non-gamers.

The casual market makes up in numbers what it lacks in fervour.

My brother used to buy about a game a month. Casual gamers probably buy about a game a year.

Games like SingStar and Buzz, that allow easy downloading of extra content, give casual gamers a different kind of game experience (we call it Social Gaming in Sony) and download content in drips and draps. It adds up to a lot of revenue because of the large number of casual gamers.

Personally I consider those types of games in a different category all to themselves (music games) for a number of reasons. First and foremost, they 'are' their own killer app because you are generally buying the peripheral for that *one* game. If you happen to buy a sequel later on, that's all good, but generally you are happy to pay the money just for the experience of that one game.

Second, these really aren't 'motion controls'...instead they are alternate controllers that are specifically designed to make the gameplay of the game they're bundled with better.

Counter this with the motion controls sold by all 3 console makers, which are being pushed as an overall new control scheme that can be used for many games. However the reality is that motion controls really make a better game in very, very few instances...probably as narrow as music games.

And that's the whole point. If gaming companies were looking at motion controls just like the peripherals for a music game, then things would be fine (and sane). But they really believe that motion controls are some giant wave of the future that is going to change everything, when they just aren't.

There are a FEW good types of games for motion controls, and almost all of them are either party games or sports simulations (golf, bowling, tennis, etc) and really that's it. Motion controls are a great idea that need to be included in the general scope of video games to help include those 'casual' gamers, but they are not the 'future' and the sooner everyone understands that and puts motion controls into the proper niche where they belong, the better IMHO.

I think the Wii has already proven that the casual gamer market is a lot bigger than you are giving it credit.

whatwhat wrote:I think the Wii has already proven that the casual gamer market is a lot bigger than you are giving it credit.

Thats not actually true. While Wii console sales have been strong, the sales of games has not been. The casual market buys the fewest number of games by far. This is why alot of the big developers do not always release for the Wii.

From wikipedia. Total Xbox 360 games sold as of dec 09 = 353.8 million. wii games sold as of dec 09 = 509.66 million.

I own a PS3 and I dont plan on getting move, ever really. Unless it either A. Somehow explodes and becomes the must have, WoW in popularity kind of thing. Or B. it flops with only a few decently made games, and I pick it up on ebay for like $50 or so.


I think the kinect and move are gunna flop honestly. Im sticking with my Wii for motion controlling. Besides modding them is rather simple, and a basically unlimited free library of Wii games makes it MUCH more appealing.

whatwhat wrote:From wikipedia. Total Xbox 360 games sold as of dec 09 = 353.8 million. wii games sold as of dec 09 = 509.66 million.

I think those numbers are probably rather misleading since they take into account global game sales, which includes Japan where the Wii is a completely dominating force (well, it is in pretty much any market) and the Xbox is dead, dead, dead. Also in Japan I think you have a much wider array of titles we'd consider 'hardcore' over here being sold on a more regular basis.

A better examination would be to look at the game sales in a single region (say, the US) and then compare that with the console sales in that same region.

Because unless all the news stories I've read are completely off base I think you'll find that per console sold, the Wii sells way less games then the PS3/Xbox360, at least in the US and Europe.


And another important note that I've heard in those same news stories was that the ratio of 1st party game sales to 3rd party game sales on the Wii was really poor. Basically, of the games that Wii owners *are* buying in the US, they are mainly 1st party games. And of course we have to consider that quite a few Nintendo 1st party games (and some 3rd party games) don't even really utilize motion controls to a large extent and are more of what we would categorize as 'hardcore' games.

Which just goes back to my point that I'm not simply 'against' motion controls in games. If they are appropriate for the game and done right as is the case with most Nintendo 1st party games, then they are great. The problem is, every tom, dick and harry 3rd party publisher tries to smoosh motion controls into every game they make and the results are uniformly horrible.

Motion controls are NOT the future of gaming in general IMO. I prefer playing console games over PC games precisely because I enjoy relaxing on my couch playing games for hours at a time (when I do play). Holding your arms up or jumping around for hours on end just isn't conducive to 'normal' gaming. Its fine for a party where you stand up, play your little game and then sit back down but *not* for general gaming.


Personally I do not see 'casual' gamers suddenly running out and buying 5-10 games in a year...more like 1-2 tops (if that).

You seem fairly decided on your idea that motion controllers are purely for casual gamers and they don't do much else but ruin more serious titles. I disagree. And noting how both Sony and Microsoft are making huge moves into the market they don't either. The idea that the only use for the hardware is for party games etc. lacks a lot of imagination. The worry is whether the games industry also share the same lack this imagination and also consider this a feature purely for casual games. As I see it if done right there are potentially a lot of uses for this kind of thing.

So you're right, the wii comparison is an unfair one. Because this isn't an issue of serious gamers vs. casual gamers. That's only an issue if you consider this technology purely for casual games. Which is the kind of mentality which limits the potential of what could be done with this. I have confidence someone will create something which makes use of it's potential.

whatwhat wrote:You seem fairly decided on your idea that motion controllers are purely for casual gamers and they don't do much else but ruin more serious titles. I disagree. And noting how both Sony and Microsoft are making huge moves into the market they don't either. The idea that the only use for the hardware is for party games etc. lacks a lot of imagination. The worry is whether the games industry also share the same lack this imagination and also consider this a feature purely for casual games. As I see it if done right there are potentially a lot of uses for this kind of thing.

I don't think you have too much to fear, it seems as though all 3 companies are pulling out all the stops to do what they can to push the technology forward regardless of its suitability or not. Sure casual games are leading the charge but they're always going to try to incorporate it whenever possible, so I'm sure we'll get the very best stuff they can come up with.


I just think at the end of the day its not whether motion controls can be used to do interesting things, because obviously they can, its just a simple matter of ergonomics. Pointing your arm (or arms) at locations on the screen becomes fatiguing...if it isn't within a few minutes, certainly within an hour. And the same is true for something like Kinect where you'd presumably be standing up and moving around.

I just think that really limits these controls to being best used in games where everything is consumed in very bite sized chunks, and personally for me, I enjoy playing my games for longer than that in a sitting.

Maybe you're right and I'm just not seeing the paradigm shift that is opening up before me, but I also think that sometimes people misunderstand the gimmick of new technology for a breakthrough when in reality that technology just isn't best implemented in the way everyone thinks it will be.

yakface wrote:Maybe you're right and I'm just not seeing the paradigm shift that is opening up before me, but I also think that sometimes people misunderstand the gimmick of new technology for a breakthrough when in reality that technology just isn't best implemented in the way everyone thinks it will be.

I agree. I haven't use this and I'm going by what the golfing game vid I posted earlier makes it out to be. I imagine it is probably exaggerating. But if it were to be correct I personally see that as a better style of golfing game as what there is currently. I have played the wii golf and that is indeed a gimmick. Hopefully this is better, but even if it isn't there is potential for a motion controller to be as good as that.

I see what your saying with the fatigue, ergonomics etc. But I don't really see this kind of technology as a replacement for the current idea of controls which don't have those problems. Hence I can still forsee serious gaming titles which use this stuff existing alongside the current ideas. Me personally I can see somewhere down the line there being VR headsets alongside this stuff and people playing COD 9 as if it was lasertag. It's just going to take a while to develop.

yakface wrote:Truth be told, I am considering buying a Kinect JUST because it supposedly auto-recognizes your face and signs you into Xbox Live when you turn on the system...

Slightly off topic I guess, but does anyone find this kinda stuff to be a little bit creepy? Like, little cameras in the gadgets we buy?

Schools in the USA are unlawfully using the web cams on the laptops they check out to pupils to spy on the pupils at home.

Farmville in Facebook is being sued for about $200 million in damages for illegally sending private user information to third party companies.

These things do start to look creepy once you realise that privacy invasion really is happening.

Back on topic, as a game industry insider, I agree with Yakface. Motion controls can do all kinds of great things, but not everything.

I also agree that casual gamers don't buy nearly as many games as hardcore gamers. It's just that there are such a lot of casual gamers that they end up contributing a lot of revenue.

I don't know any other system that had a camera and used a camera for games before the eye toy for the PS2, in fact I think the Kinect is ripping off the PS2 eye toy, those buggers. Playstation move is just an eye toy with controllers, now whether or not this was just to increase sales or to make interface easier is up to debate.

Personally I think the Move was just SONY's way to stick it to Nintendo by offering the same kind of gameplay but with better graphics and the Kinect is just Microsoft's way of sticking it to SONY by taking the eye toy and injecting it with cocaine.

Also, the tiredness of the wrist is more immersive in terms of gameplay. I will not play any FPS unless I feel the weight of the gun in my hands which is why I strap weights to my PS3 controller.