NGGP: NextGen Garbage Pile (aka: No one reads the topics or stays on topic) *spawn*

[Deleted member 11852]

If the controllers come with Move support as standard I'd be amazed if the PS4 doesn't come with a camera out of the box.

There's a world a difference between Sony building RGD LEDs into Dual Shock 4 controllers for a few cents/pennies and Sony bundling a nextgen PS Eye camera with the system.

Firstly you have to consider Sony's finances, which aren't great. Sony's console profit model is to subside the hardware and profit on the games but they'll want to be subsidising PS4 as little as possible. Secondly, although Move has achieved moderate success it's not been a runaway success and Sony know this. Maybe things will be different this upcoming gen but Sony can't really afford to gamble on this.

So building a system reliant on Eye/Move (as Microsoft are rumoured to be doing with 720 and Kinect) means Sony have to include the camera in the box and this is more hardware to subsidise. Leaving it as an optional extra for those who want it, means Sony can sell those at a profit, and it leaves the box looking more like a 'hardcore' gaming system - the opposite direction of where Microsoft look to be heading.

Four days..

 

[itsmydamnation]

so at this stage i think orbis fanboys are better, less "secret sauce" desperation then the durango fanboys. .

 

[Brad Grenz]

so at this stage i think orbis fanboys are better, less "secret sauce" desperation then the durango fanboys. .

Mostly they just understand "efficiencies" require a point of reference to be meaningful.

 

[Averagejoe]

There's a world a difference between Sony building RGD LEDs into Dual Shock 4 controllers for a few cents/pennies and Sony bundling a nextgen PS Eye camera with the system.

Firstly you have to consider Sony's finances, which aren't great. Sony's console profit model is to subside the hardware and profit on the games but they'll want to be subsidising PS4 as little as possible. Secondly, although Move has achieved moderate success it's not been a runaway success and Sony know this. Maybe things will be different this upcoming gen but Sony can't really afford to gamble on this.

So building a system reliant on Eye/Move (as Microsoft are rumoured to be doing with 720 and Kinect) means Sony have to include the camera in the box and this is more hardware to subsidise. Leaving it as an optional extra for those who want it, means Sony can sell those at a profit, and it leaves the box looking more like a 'hardcore' gaming system - the opposite direction of where Microsoft look to be heading.

Four days..

There is a difference even if sony includes a camera it doesn't mean they want the same thing MS want,move an kinect are 2 very different hings,plenty of hardcore PS3 games support move,but also normal controller,you can't say that about Kinect.

So even if sony use a camera it doesn't necessary means it will be just like kinect is,also sony is very good reducing cost of hardware,i don't think they will lose much on launch.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There is a difference even if sony includes a camera it doesn't mean they want the same thing MS want,move an kinect are 2 very different hings,plenty of hardcore PS3 games support move,but also normal controller,you can't say that about Kinect.

We don't know how different or similar Kinect 2 and Move 2 will be in terms of capabilities. And while I definitely think there's a place for motion and voice control, I've only seen it used effectively, as it where is enhances the gameplay of the games I like to play, in a few cases. Not to mention I don't want devlopers under pressure to adopt new controls paradigms that take them time to develop and test, and that make no sense. Remember all the crappy SixAxis gyro mechanics that were utterly pointless? That kind of thing.

So even if sony use a camera it doesn't necessary means it will be just like kinect is,also sony is very good reducing cost of hardware,i don't think they will lose much on launch.

Unless Eye 2 is super cheap, which I don't think it will be, it's going to add to the cost of the core system. They'll be aiming for a price point, which they'll want to be as low as possible. Adding things won't help this. PlayStation Eye didn't sell that great. Move didn't sell that great. Sony simply can not afford to make unnecessary loses this time around.

My biggest consideration for buying a PS4 is not what Microsoft are doing, it's will Sony be around in four to five years to publish games for it.

 

[Averagejoe]

We don't know how different or similar Kinect 2 and Move 2 will be in terms of capabilities. And while I definitely think there's a place for motion and voice control, I've only seen it used effectively, as it where is enhances the gameplay of the games I like to play, in a few cases. Not to mention I don't want devlopers under pressure to adopt new controls paradigms that take them time to develop and test, and that make no sense. Remember all the crappy SixAxis gyro mechanics that were utterly pointless? That kind of thing.



Unless Eye 2 is super cheap, which I don't think it will be, it's going to add to the cost of the core system. They'll be aiming for a price point, which they'll want to be as low as possible. Adding things won't help this. PlayStation Eye didn't sell that great. Move didn't sell that great. Sony simply can not afford to make unnecessary loses this time around.

My biggest consideration for buying a PS4 is not what Microsoft are doing, it's will Sony be around in four to five years to publish games for it.

Move was basically the same,the difference is that sony can and have add move controls while retaining the core controller option there,few move games are move only,because sony knows there is a portion of the market who like core controls we don't know,but we have a precedent already,and now is build into the own controller make it even easier to just switch between move and traditional controls or so i hope.:smile:

Oh for sure it will add cost,but like i told you Sony is better when it comes to reducing cost than MS is,is because of sony hardware company nature,you can see it on the PS3 is has more expensive components than the 360 yet they sell premium for the same.

And sony even that arrived 1 yea latter was able to deliver a redesign console 2 years before MS did,and already are on their 3rd design,cost reduction is sony turf.

That doesn't mean they can however lose much their situations is tied,one false movement will cost them allot.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Secondly, although Move has achieved moderate success it's not been a runaway success and Sony know this.

Move wasn't a runaway success because it wasn't included in the box and targeted by devs as a ubiquitous part of the interface. Plenty of us expected EyeToy 2 to feature as standard in PS3, but it didn't, and Sony lost their launch advantage with casual motion gaming. The price is somewhat offset by the relatively low power of the PS4 innards. Instead of going monster CPU+GPU this gen, Sony can splash out more on the controllers and devices. Sony also make their own imaging modules so can supply at cost.

I expect cameras to be included, as per the rumours.

 

[mrcorbo]

Oh for sure it will add cost,but like i told you Sony is better when it comes to reducing cost than MS is,is because of sony hardware company nature,you can see it on the PS3 is has more expensive components than the 360 yet they sell premium for the same.

You may be right about Sony's hardware engineering capabilities, but this proves nothing on it's own. There isn't always going to be a direct relationship between the cost of manufacture of a console and it's retail price point.

And sony even that arrived 1 yea latter was able to deliver a redesign console 2 years before MS did,and already are on their 3rd design,cost reduction is sony turf.

I don't see this in the positive light you do. Sony's PS3 redesigns have each involved ripping out hardware and features present in the previous version. I don't recall any console where (aesthetics aside) the original version was so far and away the best version to own and each successive revision has resulted in a lesser device. Maybe someone else can think of a comparable example?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Move wasn't a runaway success because it wasn't included in the box and targeted by devs as a ubiquitous part of the interface.

I think it's more to do with the controls not being suited to all types of games. I couldn't imagine playing GTA with a Move controller, nor Uncharted, nor Ratchet & Clank, and while I can see how it could work for games like Motorstorm, I don't think I'd prefer to play a driving game on a Move controller over a traditional one.

I expect cameras to be included, as per the rumours.

The only way I think this would be the case is if they build the sensor into the actual console itself. Not ideal but cheap.

 

[Arwin]

I'd prefer to play almost all the games you mention with a Move controller, by far. The Move is a great replacement of the right analog stick, plus benefits. It aims much more like a mouse, and then it has all the 1:1 tracking capabilities to boot.

No way in hell can I see the camera being in the same box (devkits possibly excepted). If dual camera's are included it will have to be in a shape or form that is attachable to the TV. I thought Kinect was already pushing it quite a bit in its current form.

 

[Strange]

You may be right about Sony's hardware engineering capabilities, but this proves nothing on it's own. There isn't always going to be a direct relationship between the cost of manufacture of a console and it's retail price point.



I don't see this in the positive light you do. Sony's PS3 redesigns have each involved ripping out hardware and features present in the previous version. I don't recall any console where (aesthetics aside) the original version was so far and away the best version to own and each successive revision has resulted in a lesser device. Maybe someone else can think of a comparable example?

PS and PS2. Originals almost always had more features than the later models.

PS

The versions from top to bottom is SCPH-9001, SCPH-5001, SCPH-1001.

For PS2, many changes, but SCPH-10000, SCPH-15000, and SCPH-18000 had PCMCIA slots, SCPH-500xx removed iLink port, PS2 Slim didn't have HD bay. Granted, PS2 slim had built in Ethernet port.

As for PS3, we all know about the BC ability of the original 60GB (which still sits on my desk running happily).

For Sony, later revisions take out non cost effective features that (close to) nobody really uses and allows them to sell the console at a lower price.

Apparently worked for three generations.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Yep, It's a lot easier to reduce costs when you remove features from the box, as opposed to adding them. Sony is definitely more skilled at removing features.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think it's more to do with the controls not being suited to all types of games.

Yes and no. Games would have to be designed for the controls, rather than have motion shoe-horned in. With a peripheral, games have to be designed for the mainstream userbase with additional optional control schemes added, which invariably means a lack of investment in the new controls. This in turn leads to a poor experience, which in turn leads to a lack of interest in adoption. Wii was the success it was because every game used Wiimote. If Wiimote had been a peripheral for GC, it wouldn't have sold anything like as well, just as EyeToy didn't sell anything like as well as Wii despite being suitably novel.

The only way I think this would be the case is if they build the sensor into the actual console itself. Not ideal but cheap.

Why? That'd limit where you could position the console. Cameras these days can be tiny (mobile phone). A very slim 'sensor bar' 1c, high and however many cms long could be positioned above or below the TV and connected by long cable (the trick there being managing the weight and springyness of the cable - something PSEye doesn't do well). That'll allow the PS4 to be in the AV cabinet or off to one side, instead of requiring it to be sat in front of the TV.

Yep, It's a lot easier to reduce costs when you remove features from the box, as opposed to adding them. Sony is definitely more skilled at removing features.

One could also argue that Sony are more optimistic about use of features, wastefully adding more than the platform needs, and subsequent releases noting a lack of utilisation of a feature have made the economic cut-back without detriment to the platform. But at least Sony are willing to generously invest in hardware ideas and features up front instead of skimping out and relying on add-ons.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'd prefer to play almost all the games you mention with a Move controller, by far. The Move is a great replacement of the right analog stick, plus benefits. It aims much more like a mouse, and then it has all the 1:1 tracking capabilities to boot.

I can't see how you'd map GTA controls for Move?

No way in hell can I see the camera being in the same box (devkits possibly excepted). If dual camera's are included it will have to be in a shape or form that is attachable to the TV. I thought Kinect was already pushing it quite a bit in its current form.

The advantage being you can place cameras further apart - at the far ends of the console.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The advantage being you can place cameras further apart - at the far ends of the console.

1) You can have any amount of distance between cameras in a sensor bar configuration. 2) For AR you don't want the camera's too far apart or composition will be completely screwy. I believe the norm is about 3" (7 cm) separation between cameras for stereoscopic vision.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If they put the cameras on the box it will be because they are complete morons. It's not going to happen it would be way too limiting for console placement.

 

[upnorthsox]

I can't see how you'd map GTA controls for Move?


The advantage being you can place cameras further apart - at the far ends of the console.

And what advantage is this?

 

[Deleted member 11852]

1) You can have any amount of distance between cameras in a sensor bar configuration. 2) For AR you don't want the camera's too far apart or composition will be completely screwy. I believe the norm is about 3" (7 cm) separation between cameras for stereoscopic vision.

The 6-7cm distance between sensors is optimum for cameras whose purpose is to mimic human binocular vision; where the goal is to reproduce the image for humans through whatever 3D delivery system.

But if the cameras primary purpose is to capture accurate spacial movements and depth, then a wider vector between the two sensors is beneficial particularly over shorter distances.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The 6-7cm distance between sensors is optimum for cameras whose purpose is to mimic human binocular vision; where the goal is to reproduce the image for humans through whatever 3D delivery system.

If Sony want 3D augmented reality, which I assume they do, they'll need to match that human perception.

But if the cameras primary purpose is to capture accurate spacial movements and depth, then a wider vector between the two sensors is beneficial particularly over shorter distances.

See response 1. There's nothing stopping a sensor bar being 30 cms wide or more if they want.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If Wiimote had been a peripheral for GC, it wouldn't have sold anything like as well, just as EyeToy didn't sell anything like as well as Wii despite being suitably novel.

If the Wii taught me anything it's that good motion control is actually quite hard. I played countless Wii games with poor controls. I don't want developers to have to fight to make the game controllable.

Why? That'd limit where you could position the console. Cameras these days can be tiny (mobile phone). A very slim 'sensor bar' 1c, high and however many cms long could be positioned above or below the TV and connected by long cable (the trick there being managing the weight and springyness of the cable - something PSEye doesn't do well). That'll allow the PS4 to be in the AV cabinet or off to one side, instead of requiring it to be sat in front of the TV.

I agree it would be preferable, it's also more expensive. You know what Sony's financial's look like? http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/IR/financial/fr/index.html <- Read that.

One could also argue that Sony are more optimistic about use of features, wastefully adding more than the platform needs, and subsequent releases noting a lack of utilisation of a feature have made the economic cut-back without detriment to the platform. But at least Sony are willing to generously invest in hardware ideas and features up front instead of skimping out and relying on add-ons.

Sony simply can't afford it. I refer you to the above. They don't have money to gamble on experiments. You're looking at it like a consumer and gamer. I'm looking at it like a business decision, which is what it is for them.