NPD December 2009

[ShadowRunner]

Wouldn't we better off with more advanced VR google tech. Having basically six surface projecting images means that the virtual enviroment would exist outside the dimensions of the room including all interaction. Any virtual avatar of yourself would have to be projected away from you while with VR googles and tech similar to Natal you could project the avatar onto yourself with the possibility of 1:1 movement.

Nevermind the limitation regarding two or more people making use of the room simultaneously. Im sure two googles would be cheaper than retro fitting two rooms with the tech you are describing.

*goggles

I agree though, stereoscopic VR goggles are the way to go, with eye and head tracking.

Also i think the whole idea of controllerless gaming as something people want is simply not true.
People dont want to be without a controller, they want whatever the contoller is to be intuitive to use. The impressive thing about natal isnt that it is controllerless(in fact the camera coud be classed as a controller anyhow), its te full body mocap and that it allows a 3d model based on your real life actions to be used ingame. If what natals funtionality was implemented with some sort of device that sat in the palm of your hand it wouldnt be any less impressive or desireable.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Wouldn't we better off with more advanced VR google tech. Having basically six surface projecting images means that the virtual enviroment would exist outside the dimensions of the room including all interaction. Any virtual avatar of yourself would have to be projected away from you while with VR googles and tech similar to Natal you could project the avatar onto yourself with the possibility of 1:1 movement.

Nevermind the limitation regarding two or more people making use of the room simultaneously. Im sure two googles would be cheaper than retro fitting two rooms with the tech you are describing.

The thing with VR goggles is that "natural" controllerless control is difficult, even with VR gloves. Not only that but head mounted displays still aren't comfortable for extended use, and can cause disorientation (often severe) after extended use.

You basically either have a more realistic 3D depiction of a virtual surround with sometimes difficult control schemes which have to be learned...

Or the possibility of a more natural control scheme in a less immersive environment. Properly designed you won't have the freedome to roam across an entire countryside but you also would haven't the associate disorientation as your viewpoint always matches your actual movement.

In other words. With Virtual goggles, you stay stationary while the world moves around you. Unnatural. In a simulated room, your surroundings stay stationary while you move around within it. Two different situations each with its own limitations and compromises.

Regards,
SB

 

[dobwal]

*goggles

I agree though, stereoscopic VR goggles are the way to go, with eye and head tracking.

Also i think the whole idea of controllerless gaming as something people want is simply not true.
People dont want to be without a controller, they want whatever the contoller is to be intuitive to use. The impressive thing about natal isnt that it is controllerless(in fact the camera coud be classed as a controller anyhow), its te full body mocap and that it allows a 3d model based on your real life actions to be used ingame. If what natals funtionality was implemented with some sort of device that sat in the palm of your hand it wouldnt be any less impressive or desireable.

LOL. Yeah, I think the last thing people need is a virtual reality based search engine.

I agree, motion control presents the opportunity to break the standard controller into two parts that ergonomically fits each individual hand. Leading to motion control enhancing and/or substituting current interaction.

Im sure for very casual or quirky titles, substitution would be viable but for traditional core games enhancement would make more sense. Core gamers tend to what to increase the level of interactions not dumb it down.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

*goggles

I agree though, stereoscopic VR goggles are the way to go, with eye and head tracking.

Also i think the whole idea of controllerless gaming as something people want is simply not true.
People dont want to be without a controller, they want whatever the contoller is to be intuitive to use. The impressive thing about natal isnt that it is controllerless(in fact the camera coud be classed as a controller anyhow), its te full body mocap and that it allows a 3d model based on your real life actions to be used ingame. If what natals funtionality was implemented with some sort of device that sat in the palm of your hand it wouldnt be any less impressive or desireable.

A controllerless control scheme doesn't exclude the use of a controller, yes. The beauty of it is that once you have the base controllerless control method implemented it can be used with ANY controller imaginable.

Want to have body tracking in addition to a super accurate gun? Go for it, make a super accurate gun controller. Want to make body tracking and facial recognition with a virtual control glove for accurate finger manipulation in game in a Beauty shop simulator? Go for it.

Regards,
SB

 

[Laa-Yosh]

VR helmets have been combined with head tracking for ages.

 

[dobwal]

The thing with VR goggles is that "natural" controllerless control is difficult, even with VR gloves. Not only that but head mounted displays still aren't comfortable for extended use, and can cause disorientation (often severe) after extended use.

You basically either have a more realistic 3D depiction of a virtual surround with sometimes difficult control schemes which have to be learned...

Or the possibility of a more natural control scheme in a less immersive environment. Properly designed you won't have the freedome to roam across an entire countryside but you also would haven't the associate disorientation as your viewpoint always matches your actual movement.

In other words. With Virtual goggles, you stay stationary while the world moves around you. Unnatural. In a simulated room, your surroundings stay stationary while you move around within it. Two different situations each with its own limitations and compromises.

Regards,
SB

Actually, VR goggles used in conjunction with tech like Natal can recreate controllerless control very much so like your display room tech. Furthermore, Im refering to future VR tech. I am of the opinion that VR goggle tech can move forward to present itself in a comfortable form factor akin to safety glasses and become available to the mainstream much faster than the ability to create a room thats covered by displays.

The problem with the display room is that there is no level of interaction inside the room itself meaning if you are playing a baseball and tennis game, the gamer must guess the location and path of a base or tennis ball when it trajectory leads it within the dimensions of the room. VR goggles can actually render the ball all the way to the bat or racket/ball interaction. VR goggles would provide a greater level of immersion as in GT a cockpit could be rendered around you, virtually impossible within a display room unless you're racing RVs where a 6X20 ft room would render rather nicely. LOL

A display room would come off as sitting in a glass box inside a virtual world. There is no way to get around that unless you can project images within the room itself that can be acted on by the gamer. VR goggles don't have this issue and thereby provide an more intimate level of interaction.

Natural movement would be limited to dimension of the room. Once the game extended beyond those dimensions the immersion would totally be broken. Most games aren't built around staying within a 100-200 square foot area and displays can't stimulate miles upon miles of area within a room with natural movement unless your bottom display is also a conveyor belt and that extend way beyond the scope of a few generations. VR goggle's movement while unnatural to reality, its very natural to the way we interact with games now.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Actually, VR goggles used in conjunction with tech like Natal can recreate controllerless control very much so like your display room tech. Furthermore, Im refering to future VR tech. I am of the opinion that VR goggle tech can move forward to present itself in a comfortable form factor akin to safety glasses and become available to the mainstream much faster than the ability to create a room thats covered by displays.

The problem with the display room is that there is no level of interaction inside the room itself meaning if you are playing a baseball and tennis game, the gamer must guess the location and path of a base or tennis ball when it trajectory leads it within the dimensions of the room. VR goggles can actually render the ball all the way to the bat or racket/ball interaction. VR goggles would provide a greater level of immersion as in GT a cockpit could be rendered around you, virtually impossible within a display room unless you're racing RVs where a 6X20 ft room would render rather nicely. LOL

A display room would come off as sitting in a glass box inside a virtual world. There is no way to get around that unless you can project images within the room itself that can be acted on by the gamer. VR goggles don't have this issue and thereby provide an more intimate level of interaction.

Natural movement would be limited to dimension of the room. Once the game extended beyond those dimensions the immersion would totally be broken. Most games aren't built around staying within a 100-200 square foot area and displays can't stimulate miles upon miles of area within a room with natural movement unless your bottom display is also a conveyor belt and that extend way beyond the scope of a few generations. VR goggle's movement while unnatural to reality, its very natural to the way we interact with games now.

No arguments with what you have put forth. Remember, I didn't mention this with regards to gaming but with regards to possible research applications which often do not have gaming in mind.

Although I understand that this being in a gaming forum, people will, of course, try to find a game related reasoning to everything.

Yes, you'll be limited to a room, but again, one of the main keys is avoiding the disorientation of seeing your environment move around you, but your body doesn't move. Likewise with being able to correctly calculate stereo seperation to present a consistent likeness to real world depth perception.

If you've ever used VR goggles for an extended period of time, the disorientation is often far worse than the discomfort of just wearing a VR system.

Regards,
SB

 

[ShadowRunner]

A controllerless control scheme doesn't exclude the use of a controller, yes. The beauty of it is that once you have the base controllerless control method implemented it can be used with ANY controller imaginable.

Want to have body tracking in addition to a super accurate gun? Go for it, make a super accurate gun controller. Want to make body tracking and facial recognition with a virtual control glove for accurate finger manipulation in game in a Beauty shop simulator? Go for it.

Regards,
SB

I dont think you ar understanding where im coming from exactly.
Im making a statement that the whole big thing about natal and what everyone is excited about ISNT that it is controllerless. From many posts it seems though people, and MS themselves, are putting a large emphasis on controllerless gaming when talking of Natal, IMO thats not the part people really want. What they want is a 3d model of themselves onscreen mimicing thier every move, the fact the implementation requires a controller or not isnt the exciting part.
In terms of gaming without a controller we already have eyetoy for instance, people dont want natal because it is more controllerless than eyetoy they want it because of what it enables, controller or not.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I dont think you ar understanding where im coming from exactly.
Im making a statement that the whole big thing about natal and what everyone is excited about ISNT that it is controllerless. From many posts it seems though people, and MS themselves, are putting a large emphasis on controllerless gaming when talking of Natal, IMO thats not the part people really want. What they want is a 3d model of themselves onscreen mimicing thier every move, the fact the implementation requires a controller or not isnt the exciting part.
In terms of gaming without a controller we already have eyetoy for instance, people dont want natal because it is more controllerless than eyetoy they want it because of what it enables, controller or not.

No I get it. But, for MS's goals, they are doing it correctly in targetting a potential market segment that will be attracted to a purely controllerless control scheme. It's a way to possibly expand the user base far faster than trying to appeal to the market segment they already have.

For the market segment they already have, developers are of course free to target their Natal supporting games however they wish, but that isn't going to have even a fraction of the potential of expanding the X360 install base.

In other words... Yes, there is a potential market for a Natal to be used in conjunction with a standard controller, but it's a market segment they are already welll entrenched in. So the focus won't be there, but nothing prevents devs from creating games for this segment.

The market segment they are going after/trying to create is one that isn't necessarily interested in a controller. Call it the Wii casuals or people that have NO console yet. This is the great big mass of untapped potential that the X360 hasn't addressed yet. The big question is whether the games developed purely for Natal will have the appeal necessary to draw in some of that potential consumer base.

Regards,
SB

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

The only bit I'm remotely interested in is the ability to control my entire entertainment experience (sans games) without picking up a single controller, except perhaps to initially turn on the unit.

I couldn't care less about interactive virtual avatars or the like, so I think your claims of knowing the demands of the audience are rather brash.

 

[ShadowRunner]

No I get it. But, for MS's goals, they are doing it correctly in targetting a potential market segment that will be attracted to a purely controllerless control scheme. It's a way to possibly expand the user base far faster than trying to appeal to the market segment they already have.

For the market segment they already have, developers are of course free to target their Natal supporting games however they wish, but that isn't going to have even a fraction of the potential of expanding the X360 install base.

In other words... Yes, there is a potential market for a Natal to be used in conjunction with a standard controller, but it's a market segment they are already welll entrenched in. So the focus won't be there, but nothing prevents devs from creating games for this segment.

The market segment they are going after/trying to create is one that isn't necessarily interested in a controller. Call it the Wii casuals or people that have NO console yet. This is the great big mass of untapped potential that the X360 hasn't addressed yet. The big question is whether the games developed purely for Natal will have the appeal necessary to draw in some of that potential consumer base.

Think back to the tech demos, what was the impressive part? Was it that the guy splashing paint didnt have anything in his hand, or was it that there was a full 3d model on screen moving exactly as he did? Was it impresive that the girl talking to milo wasnt holding anything, or that the AI boy understood her speach and had a natural conversation with her?

Regards,
SB

No, you dont get it at all
Im saying the people they are going after with Natal dont want it because its controllerless, they want it so a cute character can jump around on screen the same as they do, mimicing thier actions. The fact its controllerless isnt its biggest selling point, otherwise they could have just stuck with the Vision cam! Im not saying they should have a controller, im saying whether they do or dont its appeal isnt based on that.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

No, you dont get it at all
Im saying the people they are going after with Natal dont want it because its controllerless, they want it so a cute character can jump around on screen the same as they do, mimicing thier actions. The fact its controllerless isnt its biggest selling point, otherwise they could have just stuck with the Vision cam! Im not saying they should have a controller, im saying whether they do or dont its appeal isnt based on that.

I DO get it.

At least what you mean, it's just that I disagree about what the market they are trying to attract want.

And that controllerless aspect is a key part of that attraction. The fact that it will need compelling content suitable to the market segment they are going after is a given. But the controllerless aspect is the key driver and key attraction. The rest devolves down to execution and guessing correctly what those people want to do with the controllerless experience.

/me mentally prepares for the you REALLY don't get it response.

Regards,
SB

 

[ShadowRunner]

Think back to the tech demos, what was the impressive part? Was it that the guy splashing paint didnt have anything in his hand, or was it that there was a full 3d model on screen moving exactly as he did? Was it impresive that the girl talking to milo wasnt holding anything, or that the AI boy understood her speach and had a natural conversation with her?

For arguments sake if Natal DID require you to hold a small device in one hand with say a single button, instead of the camera system, do you then suppose this market you are taking about would no longer be interested?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

For arguments sake if Natal DID require you to hold a small device in one hand with say a single button, instead of the camera system, do you then suppose this market you are taking about would no longer be interested?

Short answer yes. The experience is incomplete without the lack of a controller. Perhaps in the paint scene holding a bucket or fake tube of paint would increase the immersion. But you can't do that for all games targetting at Natal (making suitable controller props).

In the case of the boy, holding a controller ruins the illusion of walking up to a boy and having a conversation with him (no matter how contrived).

To put it another way. Is it more intuitive to walk up to a boy and just talk to him, hand him a piece of papers, reach out your hand and mimic patting him on the head... Or, walking up to a boy holding something that allows you to interact with the boy?

In a Tennis game. Would it be more intuitive to swing your arm as if you are swinging a tennis racket? Or to hold a controller, and press a button to swing your racket? While pressing a button may be more accurate, it doesn't have quite the same intuitive use or suspension of disbelief as swinging your arm (even if you aren't actually holding a racket, although I'd imagine you could grab a racket and swing it if you wished).

As I said, I just see it differently. The controllerless aspect is part and parcel of the attraction. It is integral to the draw for that market segment MS is hoping to tap into. And as said, obviously compelling content is required to validate the markets faith that Natal will be a compelling experience (assuming of course there is a market for this).

Something I wish MS would have done when demo'ing Natal was to show if you could just pick up and use everday props when using it. A tennis racket for example, or a bucket in the case of throwing paint on a screen, or a dinner plate used as a steering wheel with Burnout.

Regards,
SB

 

[corduroygt]

S A tennis racket for example, or a bucket in the case of throwing paint on a screen, or a dinner plate used as a steering wheel with Burnout.

Judging by the number of "wiimote meets TV" instances followed by Nintendo issuing wristbands, I don't know if that's such a great idea, especially not in the land of the lawsuits

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Judging by the number of "wiimote meets TV" instances followed by Nintendo issuing wristbands, I don't know if that's such a great idea, especially not in the land of the lawsuits

Haha, yeah, wouldn't be a good idea to allow the use of an actual Baseball in a baseball game. Or bowling ball.

Regards,
SB

 

[Carl B]

Once this thread was about the December NPD numbers... but fast forward to Arc vs Natal and this is my take in succinct fashion:

Arc won't do well, Natal will.

I still view Natal in a 'Guitar Hero' vein, where owners of existing consoles will buy it purely for the novelty factor, and non-owners will buy it potentially for the same. Should sell some more consoles for MS, and in its own right be a huge money-maker simply from its own sales+sales of novelty software. I don't see "women" as a demographic that will pile into this thing as has been mentioned, the accessory just has its own appeal. If the 360 gets a slimline version in the process, so much the better.

The Arc on the other hand... the problem for Sony is that the PS3 is not the "family" system, no matter what they do in that regard. Do the larger pool of PS3 owners care about 1-1 hand-centric motion mapping? I don't know, but I figure those that do already have a Wii, and those that don't won't care after its release, either. I'll have to see some pretty compelling stuff myself to take the plunge; who knows, maybe Sony has just the game waiting for me. For years I've been lamenting the lack of focus on their true casual/controller dark horse, the EyeToy, and honestly that Natal has come along ahead of Sony's getting there in spite of the hardware nature of the SPE's to be perfectly suited, the magic mirror demo of years ago, the Minority Report interface target vision... does it make sense? Someone at SCE HQ is not seeing the potential of some of the efforts that have already preceded.

Natal will equal something fresh, and Arc will seem like added system functionality to lock down an advantage from a competitor. Nothing wrong with the later, but the former engenders more excitement.

 

[Crossbar]

Arc won't do well, Natal will.

You may be right on this, Natal may have more appeal as it´s not as much of a Wii clone as the Arc may seem to be and therefore be more of a novelty.

But it will all come down to marketing and let´s face it, the Playstation Eye already offers some of the functionality that Natal provides when it comes to putting the player in the scene of the game.

I have the Eyepet game and it may not cater to the B3D demographic, but it´s quite a showcase of what is possible with the Playstation Eye, together with the added precision of the Arc and tactile feedback when you are stroking (or striking) the pet etc., I think the Arc will sure have an appeal that goes beyond the Wii and be different to Natal when it comes to real game play.

However, the price point of the PS3 will remain it´s biggest hurdle as it has still not hit the release price of the Wii, so unless they can get the price down some more this fall then the Arc will have a very tough situation as I expect the target demographic will mainly be the cost conscious casual gamers.

It will be really interesting to see the game line up that will offered for release for both Natal and Arc.

 

[liolio]

Well Natal on top of every other arguments will do better based on its own merit. Clearly for once it looks like Ms has made a breakthrough in the AI field. Not matter how much Natal is downplayed in the "webosphere" Natal is quiet sonething and competitor are nowhere close. It's not about SPE being better suited,etc. Natal takes 10/15% of CPU resources, a thread on the 360 most likely it would take less time on a single SPU, Natal is clever it's not about resources it's what looks like like really clever software.
For marketing, well looks like Sony is not focused on arc, they look more concerned by 3d and how it can affect their tv and other businesses. Ms on the other side is focused on Natal.
Natal has another huge advantage it comes to PC too, even Nintendo feels like they have to downplay Natal not that it may affect the wii but because in the long run they know Ms have something they are no where near to match. Ms will be the first to offer this kind of experience and it's coming this fall on 360 and PC should follow, Ms have an opportunity to set a new powerful brand not only in the video game realm, for once it's not something they copied/paste.

 

[Crossbar]

Clearly for once it looks like Ms has made a breakthrough in the AI field.

Are yoou thinking of their method of mapping the Z-picture to a limbs-model?

For marketing, well looks like Sony is not focused on arc, they look more concerned by 3d and how it can affect their tv and other businesses. Ms on the other side is focused on Natal.

Good point, Sony may have a difficult task of targeting their PR to both the hardcore hi-end market for 3D and the casual market for Arc.
MS will have a much more focused target demographic, the fact they dropped the CPU from Natal shows that a low price point is very important for the market they are aiming for.