News & Rumours: Playstation 4/ Orbis *spin*

[Cjail]

I think that Sony is just waiting to see where motion controls are going.
If they fail to take root then the loss for Sony won't probably be dramatic sinc they would not have invested too much on it.
If they become popular (thanks to Kinect and Leap Motion I suppose) then Sony can still jump in and make motion controls mandatory just like PS Vita remote play since it has the hardware already.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think that Sony is just waiting to see where motion controls are going.

Well they shouldn't, and that's somewhat unlike them. They've traditionally been willing to push advances rather than wait for others to lead the way. Sony's software library is full of unconventional games and...oddities. They were the first to bring out camera gaming. This is a U-turn in philosophy. We've even heard that they had Move in some form or other long before they released it. I don't understand Sony's investment in the RnD group only to constantly ignore it. Perhaps the loss of Phil Harrison is greater than people appreciate?

 

[temesgen]

Well they shouldn't, and that's somewhat unlike them. They've traditionally been willing to push advances rather than wait for others to lead the way. Sony's software library is full of unconventional games and...oddities. They were the first to bring out camera gaming. This is a U-turn in philosophy. We've even heard that they had Move in some form or other long before they released it. I don't understand Sony's investment in the RnD group only to constantly ignore it. Perhaps the loss of Phil Harrison is greater than people appreciate?

Perhaps their reluctance is due the R&D work they have already done. Maybe they feel camera based control isn't robust enough to offer compelling gameplay experiences and the use of a Move based controller increases the cost too much compared to a traditional joystick.

You said it yourself that Kinect 2.0 so far hasn't shown that much which makes the case for technology and from what we know Kinect is a more capable solution than the PSeye sans Move controller.

 

[MrFox]

Looking at their patents, if they have an improved version of the Move, they could be waiting for the manufacturability of this strange tactile mesh, or something else.

 

[hesido]

Looking at their patents, if they have an improved version of the Move, they could be waiting for the manufacturability of this strange tactile mesh, or something else.

Let them add an analogue stick... They've crippled Move so much without it.

 

[patsu]

I think that Sony is just waiting to see where motion controls are going.
If they fail to take root then the loss for Sony won't probably be dramatic sinc they would not have invested too much on it.
If they become popular (thanks to Kinect and Leap Motion I suppose) then Sony can still jump in and make motion controls mandatory just like PS Vita remote play since it has the hardware already.

They didn't wait. They pioneered it and decided that the technology need more time and investment.

Like 3D, they will probably continue work on them in the background, with some short-mid term targets in mind.

 

[Bagel seed]

Where it gets interesting is haptics in combination with motion control. But until then it's all slightly novel fun while miming at a 2D screen.

When VR takes off, motion control will follow naturally.

Also, every step of the way we're advancing with motion control, it's still very much stuck in it's own version of uncanny valley. Still not enough processing power for near lagless performance, still not enough power and robustness in physics engines to allow full interactivity with all objects in game worlds. So what's the point? It's just not very attractive as a standard feature in games until these things are achievable. Just dump in head tracking and basic UI manipulation in all games and call it a day for now. It will all be solved next next gen with enough power, and finally become useful with VR.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think that Sony is just waiting to see where motion controls are going.
If they fail to take root then the loss for Sony won't probably be dramatic sinc they would not have invested too much on it.
If they become popular (thanks to Kinect and Leap Motion I suppose) then Sony can still jump in and make motion controls mandatory just like PS Vita remote play since it has the hardware already.

The loss comes from being behind and then trying to play catch up. Compare the relative success of Kinect to Move in the current generation. Kinect was vastly more successful in selling software titles which made it a lot more profitable. Now imagine if Sony had continued their work with camera based controls and gaming. That would have been them instead of Microsoft raking in most of that profit.

Now move to the upcoming generation. PS4 offers nothing new other than increased performance in everything that existed before. While the competition is moving ahead with something that may or may not revolutionize or evolutionize (yes I know that isn't a proper word) gaming. If it takes off that leaves Sony in a very awkward spot. Even if they include the camera accessory in every console mid generation, that still leaves many developers to wonder why they should bother with motion controls on the PS3 as a significant portion of their install base may not have the camera accessory.

At best Sony could then hope for ports from the competition, but the competition will always be the lead platform for those games at that time due to every single console coming with the necessary hardware to support the game. At worst, publishers just won't bother.

Basically Sony is playing it safe (like Nintendo did when Sony approached them with the CD-ROM based console design) while Microsoft is taking a gamble (like Sony did with the PS1).

Regards,
SB

 

[Arwin]

Much depends on whether stuff like this is still coming:

 

[DrJay24]

The loss comes from being behind and then trying to play catch up. Compare the relative success of Kinect to Move in the current generation. Kinect was vastly more successful in selling software titles which made it a lot more profitable. Now imagine if Sony had continued their work with camera based controls and gaming. That would have been them instead of Microsoft raking in most of that profit.

Now move to the upcoming generation. PS4 offers nothing new other than increased performance in everything that existed before. While the competition is moving ahead with something that may or may not revolutionize or evolutionize (yes I know that isn't a proper word) gaming. If it takes off that leaves Sony in a very awkward spot. Even if they include the camera accessory in every console mid generation, that still leaves many developers to wonder why they should bother with motion controls on the PS3 as a significant portion of their install base may not have the camera accessory.

At best Sony could then hope for ports from the competition, but the competition will always be the lead platform for those games at that time due to every single console coming with the necessary hardware to support the game. At worst, publishers just won't bother.

Basically Sony is playing it safe (like Nintendo did when Sony approached them with the CD-ROM based console design) while Microsoft is taking a gamble (like Sony did with the PS1).

Regards,
SB

Or MS was mislead by the temporary success in 2010 with Kinect and bet the next gen on it. Now gamers don't care about arm waving and waggle and MS is swimming around with a $100 anchor around their necks. I think Sony lucked out not putting their eggs in the motion based basket. They still support the Move and have a camera which is part of the ecosystem, but it doesn't add to the BOM. The Core drives consoles launches, the family friendly motion stuff can come later if they care at all by then.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Or MS was mislead by the temporary success in 2010 with Kinect and bet the next gen on it. Now gamers don't care about arm waving and waggle and MS is swimming around with a $100 anchor around their necks. I think Sony lucked out not putting their eggs in the motion based basket. They still support the Move and have a camera which is part of the ecosystem, but it doesn't add to the BOM. The Core drives consoles launches, the family friendly motion stuff can come later if they care at all by then.

I did say it was taking a "gamble." Just as Sony did when it launched a console with a CD-ROM.

But you can't have huge successes in business without taking a risk (gamble) that you might well fail at.

The worst thing that can happen with a business is that you suddenly become risk averse. At that point you've greatly limited your capability of potentially introducing something that is market changing and the inherent benefits that comes with. On the other hand you've also isolated yourself from risks, so you won't suffer as much of a failure if the gamble doesn't pay off.

Launching PS Eye was a risky move. But a limited one as the company didn't bank too much on it, and evidently has abandoned for the moment. The same goes for the Move, a limited risk move with limited upside. Easily abandoned because Sony didn't pour a lot of resources into it relative to the competition. Either in promotion, a company wide push, or effort in getting third parties involved.

Regards,
SB

 

[Bagel seed]

The worst thing that can happen with a business is that you suddenly become risk averse. At that point you've greatly limited your capability of potentially introducing something that is market changing and the inherent benefits that comes with. On the other hand you've also isolated yourself from risks, so you won't suffer as much of a failure if the gamble doesn't pay off.

You make it sound like they're in the business of designing cars or something. Millions of people still buy the 'boring' old non motion supported games we know now, and will continue to. Wii was the aberration.

 

[patsu]

Where it gets interesting is haptics in combination with motion control. But until then it's all slightly novel fun while miming at a 2D screen.

When VR takes off, motion control will follow naturally.

I am not totally convinced VR need motion control. ^_^

The loss comes from being behind and then trying to play catch up. Compare the relative success of Kinect to Move in the current generation. Kinect was vastly more successful in selling software titles which made it a lot more profitable. Now imagine if Sony had continued their work with camera based controls and gaming. That would have been them instead of Microsoft raking in most of that profit.

Not really. On hindsight, Sony's focus has always been on the core gamers. Motion control is not proven there.
EyeToy enjoyed lot's of casual game success in Europe, but Sony seem to want more precise control for traditional games.

It seems that they are also curious about touch gaming for core gamers (See Vita and DS4 touch pad).

Now move to the upcoming generation. PS4 offers nothing new other than increased performance in everything that existed before. While the competition is moving ahead with something that may or may not revolutionize or evolutionize (yes I know that isn't a proper word) gaming. If it takes off that leaves Sony in a very awkward spot. Even if they include the camera accessory in every console mid generation, that still leaves many developers to wonder why they should bother with motion controls on the PS3 as a significant portion of their install base may not have the camera accessory.

At best Sony could then hope for ports from the competition, but the competition will always be the lead platform for those games at that time due to every single console coming with the necessary hardware to support the game. At worst, publishers just won't bother.

Basically Sony is playing it safe (like Nintendo did when Sony approached them with the CD-ROM based console design) while Microsoft is taking a gamble (like Sony did with the PS1).

Nope. It's the opposite. Gaikai is not a safe bet at this point at all. Even Microsoft execs think game streaming is not ready yet (in one of their interviews). We'll see how they mitigate the risks next year.

 

[patsu]

Much depends on whether stuff like this is still coming:

Yes.

And my God, what was the name of that PixelJunk midnight psychedelic color game ? I would have killed that concept out right but they ok'ed it for better or worse. 8^O

 

[Bagel seed]

I am not totally convinced VR need motion control. ^_^

It doesn't need it, but it'd be a nice to have By next next gen we'll be living in massive photoreal worlds. It'd only be natural to interact with it like you would in r/l.

Look -> Touch -> ... Taste? Heh.

 

[grndzro]

It doesn't need it, but it'd be a nice to have By next next gen we'll be living in massive photoreal worlds. It'd only be natural to interact with it like you would in r/l.

Look -> Touch -> ... Taste? Heh.

Yea I would think VR and motion control would go like peanut butter and jelly.

Especially when envisioning some massive VR survival MMO where you can look down grab something from your belt and actually have to use it

 

[MrFox]

I'd be curious to see a credible estimate of:
1. How many will buy the camera eventually
2. How many are buying a PS4 because it's $100 less
3. How many would skip the PS4 if Sony raised the price and said "PS4 is the Camera, if you don't like it, buy a PS3"
4. How many skip the PS4 because the cam isn't bundled, instead of just buying the camera.

I won't pull numbers out of my ass, I have no data, but I'm pretty sure Sony has that kind of data from extensive market research. If there's a killer app coming out I'm jumping on the camera immediately. I think it's the games that sell peripherals, not the other way around. Or at least there's a strong synergy between the two which makes the bundling a moot point. See Wii Fit.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think it's the games that sell peripherals, not the other way around. Or at least there's a strong synergy between the two which makes the bundling a moot point. See Wii Fit.

Sure that happens all the time. But doesn't lead to anything significant. Light gun games have sold light guns. But games then don't attempt to integrate the light gun because it isn't universal.

People bought Eye Toy for because of the games. But Eye Toy got pretty much no support because it wasn't universal.

The only peripherals that exist outside of that spectrum are pretty much steering wheels and flight sticks, and that is only because those games would exist even if those accessories didn't exist.

Think of it another way. If a console controller came out that had 8 face buttons instead of the standard 4 (not counting start and select) and there was a killer game that supported those 8 buttons. How many games do you think are going to get made to support that controller?

Think back to the original NES. If a controller came out with an analog stick and 2 extra face buttons, how much support would it have gotten if it wasn't included in the standard box? Basically none other than what launched with it.

Or if Nintendo launched a controller with 2 analog sticks and a FPS game that supported it for the N64, but didn't include it with the base system? Pretty much no one would have supported that controller in their games either.

Regards,
SB

 

[Kaotik]

I think it's the games that sell peripherals, not the other way around. Or at least there's a strong synergy between the two which makes the bundling a moot point. See Wii Fit.

Games can sell peripherals, but having the said peripheral included with the console means pretty much automatically a LOT more games utilizing it, see WiiMote.

 

[Bagel seed]

Think of it another way. If a console controller came out that had 8 face buttons instead of the standard 4 (not counting start and select) and there was a killer game that supported those 8 buttons. How many games do you think are going to get made to support that controller?

Think back to the original NES. If a controller came out with an analog stick and 2 extra face buttons, how much support would it have gotten if it wasn't included in the standard box? Basically none other than what launched with it.

Or if Nintendo launched a controller with 2 analog sticks and a FPS game that supported it for the N64, but didn't include it with the base system? Pretty much no one would have supported that controller in their games either.

Poor analogy. We've already pretty much reached the limit on the number of useable buttons/triggers on a typical controller with good form factor. And the DS4 looks to have gone the final step with a touchpad, which imo is the most logical addition to controls out of them all this go around. Everyone and their babies are used to using touch controls now. In contrast, most camera controls end up simply just mirroring an action that can be done from a button anyways.