There isn't, though I honestly don't see the problem. People here are likely only to buy the package for $100. It's just easy to throw around MSRP's and predict failure or "stupidity" on the part of the manufacturer.
Old Discussion Thread for all 3 motion controllers
- Thread starter betan
- Start date
- Status
There isn't, though I honestly don't see the problem. People here are likely only to buy the package for $100. It's just easy to throw around MSRP's and predict failure or "stupidity" on the part of the manufacturer.
Depth sensing and 3D imaging ? I wonder about ultrasonic sensors. I think AIBO has 6 of them to sense distance and may be image the environment (not sure anymore). Sony filed a related patent for gaming but Dr. Marks and company chose the light ball approach in the end.
yes, sorry - I guess the site I read it at was wrong!
I agree, I've even had someone compare the UK expected RRP (£40) with that of a Wiimote+Nunchuck at a particular store (i.e. not the RRP!).
I need to buy a couple of Moves and that's about it, should I be impressed and feel the need to get more I will, but I don't see the big issue - I bought 4 Wiimotes and 2 nun-chuck and now Ninty want me to buy 4 add-ons @ ~ £60-80 to fix it!
Sorry, I went into a bit of a rant there.
I agree, I've even had someone compare the UK expected RRP (£40) with that of a Wiimote+Nunchuck at a particular store (i.e. not the RRP!).
I need to buy a couple of Moves and that's about it, should I be impressed and feel the need to get more I will, but I don't see the big issue - I bought 4 Wiimotes and 2 nun-chuck and now Ninty want me to buy 4 add-ons @ ~ £60-80 to fix it!
Sorry, I went into a bit of a rant there.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Nah, you're wrong.
Simply compare GameCube to Wii, to see exactly what impact a different control scheme can have. GameCube had great software, but traditional controller, and it was pretty much a failure. So that pretty much blows your argument to bits
At the end of the day it is the software, of course, but controllers are definately a barrier. Or rather, I think they are simply less "fun" for casual gamers. It's not that they my mom/dad can't play with a traditional controller, it just isn't nearly as appealing to them.
Simply compare GameCube to Wii, to see exactly what impact a different control scheme can have. GameCube had great software, but traditional controller, and it was pretty much a failure. So that pretty much blows your argument to bits
At the end of the day it is the software, of course, but controllers are definately a barrier. Or rather, I think they are simply less "fun" for casual gamers. It's not that they my mom/dad can't play with a traditional controller, it just isn't nearly as appealing to them.
Posted in the PS3 Conference thread...
I will add that this puts the pricing about in line with Wii peripherals. It does get expensive for multiple players though. I don't see many people buying the sub controller though. Looks like you're better off using the $30 to buy another Move controller & just use your DS3 controllers for the thumbstick. Uncomfortable for myself since I never liked the Dual Shock anyway, but for those that use them, they won't have a problem with them.
Tommy McClain
AzBat said:
I will add that this puts the pricing about in line with Wii peripherals. It does get expensive for multiple players though. I don't see many people buying the sub controller though. Looks like you're better off using the $30 to buy another Move controller & just use your DS3 controllers for the thumbstick. Uncomfortable for myself since I never liked the Dual Shock anyway, but for those that use them, they won't have a problem with them.
Tommy McClain
Ah, okay, I misunderstood. I suppose a 2D video feed in a 3D world would be unsettling, meaning stereoscopic capture would be wanted. Depth perception would be hard, but you should be able to use the 2 images to get better optical image recognition. Either that or three lenses with a time-of-flight camera too. Next-gen consoles will be the same hardware we have now but with $200 worth of optics on the front!
Nah, you're wrong.
Simply compare GameCube to Wii, to see exactly what impact a different control scheme can have. GameCube had great software, but traditional controller, and it was pretty much a failure. So that pretty much blows your argument to bits
At the end of the day it is the software, of course, but controllers are definately a barrier. Or rather, I think they are simply less "fun" for casual gamers. It's not that they my mom/dad can't play with a traditional controller, it just isn't nearly as appealing to them.
I don't really think the controller is why the GameCube was a failure. I also don't think the Wii Remote as a controller is why the Wii is successful.
You can't possibly believe that there were simply millions of people out there, just dying to play video games, but staying away because of the controller. They didn't say "Oh, all I have to do is swing this controller to play? I'll take one!". Absolutely not. It was a huge combination of things, but most importantly was the fun and the software. The selling point was word of mouth and Good Morning America. Everyone raved about how fun it was to play. I simply do not buy that these people were just waiting to get into video games once the controller was a bit more simple.
After all, if you look at Atari Games, they were extremely simple, yet weren't flying off of shelves. It was the software. It wasn't fun, necessarily, and often times the games were so poorly designed (or poorly functional) that they just didn't capture people.
I just can't buy into the controller being the biggest factor.
Edit: Either way, this is EXTREMELY off topic, so can we possibly move this discussion to another thread? My apologies to the mods and OP!
I can definitely see EyeToy 3 being called EyeToy 3D and incorporating both stereoscopic imaging and time of flight.
The reason why the Wii ended up on all those morning shows is because of the controller. It was the first video game motion controller (at least the first one for your home). It turned gaming into an activity rather than a passive experience. If the Wii had launched with say the original NES controller, or an old school Atari joystick with two buttons, no one would have cared about Wii Sports. Playing with motion controls may not be any simpler, depending on the game, but standing up and moving is fun for a lot of people.
The same sofware wouldnt have mattered without motion sensing.
This is are the type of games they were releasing on the GC as well.
yep.. my GF would not be caught dead with a controller.... we played 1v100 for a while and she was disgusted to even touch the controller and was frustrated using it for even the most simple of tasks. She nearly would put on a disguise to play when the kids were home.
Seriously, she thinks it's patently juvenile. But showing her this Kinect footage? it was like a light went off in her head and she saw action, she saw interaction, she saw engaged people, and most importantly she didn't see any "STUPID" controller in anybody's hand. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not without empirical data to back it up... this is a market of untapped potential.
Indeed they weren't. The idea of pretending to shoot people or chop orcs or race cars or jump on mushrooms didn't appeal to them.
Except it was the controller that made the games. Pick a successful game (or health 'app'!) on Wii and consider how Wiimote made it successful and how a GC controller would have prevented mass adoption. Wii-sports had players pretending to play those sports, instead of wiggling their thumbs. It wasn't the idea of wiggling their thumbs that discouraged them, but the opportunity to swing a virtual bat that encouraged them. And Wiimote also solved thumb skills that many lack. Even if a lot of folk did want to play an FPS on console, aiming with a thumbstick isn't easy. I've seen non-gamer types wrestling with independent look and move in FPSes/TPSes and it's quite painful, even when they enjoy the game. If you elliminate that requirement for new skills, you open doors for new folk to enjoy games.
Wii categorically only does as well as it does because Nintendo chose a motion controller and designed games to support it. Those same games mapped to a conventional controller would bomb. Consider PlayStation Sports and Xbox Play on their default controllers; they just wouldn't sell many millions of units. This is why these companies are diversifying into movement, of in Sony's case expanding it. Bare in mind Sony have been messing about with motion with EyeToy and even before that, because they saw how people naturally wanted to use motion. Sorcery is a decidedly dull game when you take away the magic of the wand. Kinectimals has zero appeal when you have to press buttons to interact with the tiger. Nintendogs would be no fun if to rub the puppy's tummy you have to tap the A button, and hold the A button to stroke the mutt.
Again, nothing changed. The fundamental problem is that you, like the typical hardcore, take anything that isn't a traditional game and glop it into the uber large "Wii" category. The best counter example I can give of that is what non gamers think of hardcore games. Have you ever heard a non gamer say that shooters are all the same game over and over again? MW2, Gears, Halo, Battlefield, KZ2, etc, every single one of them appear as the identical game to non gamers and they are puzzled why we play the same game time and time again. To me and you that's madness as we clearly know there are differences. But non gamers can't see it and will likely never be able to see it even though the differences are clearly there. Likewise with platform games and other genres, they are all "the same game" to them. Have you never heard that type of comment before? I've heard it frequently over the years. What you are doing is the same but from the other perspective where anything that isn't a traditional game is just a Wii remake to you. You can't see someone for example not being interested in Wii but being interested in Kinectic, because to you they are all the same. That's where your logic breaks.
The fundamental difference between me and you is that I do see the Kinectic launch apps as new and unique experiences hitting brand new audiences, and I do not just see them as Wii remakes. They *are* new to me. To you (and most other hardcore for that matter) they are just more 'Wii' games. Hence why I repeat like a broken record that the hardcore, who all mostly thought the Wii was going to be a colossal failure I might add, simply don't get it. So again, nothing has changed. I'm also amazed you can't see the value in a product where you can directly interact in a virtual world with your hands. I must be special to be able see the immense potential here, whereas on forums all that seems to matter to matter is lag, which is funny because non gamers typically have large amounts of lag in their normal response times anyways.
*nod* *nod* Yes, the controller alone does not make all the differences. It's everything together, like the choice of WiiSports as the flagship title, the idea of motion controller for intuitive control schemes (cycling, golf, frisbee, blah), the way it's messaged, the decision to stay away from HD, etc.
Nintendo did so many different things right for its target audiences.
Nintendo could have done Miis and Wii Sports and SD (selling point?) and all those things and none of it would have mattered without the wiimote. The thing was on tv because gaming became an activity, and not a passive experience. You can't tell me they would have had the system on morning shows and the news if it was video of people sitting around like slobs, diddling their thumbs. If they'd released the product with something other than Wii Sports, or with something other than Miis, I think it still would have generated buzz. The control is the novelty, the draw and the entertainment.
Motion controls are big business and Sony and MS want a piece. They're getting ready for next gen.
Though I agree with everything else you've written, there's a reason to bring up lag. You can't play table tennis when there's a fifth of a second between you swinging for a ball and your bat actually moving. The only way to make that work is to change the nature of the table-tennis game so it's not a simulation but a game based on the ideas of table tennis, much how Wii Tennis wasn't really tennis. This is one example, but the issue permeates lots of game types that Kinect could be good for, with sports being a key interest in non-gamers. Lots of golfers will love the idea of playing golf indoors, for example. Lag won't affect that, so Kinect will work. Other titles will be affected.
It's also unfair to think of core gamers as narrow minded when they are looking at what they could get from Kinect. Why shouldn't they being hoping for a core game experience from Kinect? What you're describing is like waving a new toy over a kid's head and then giving it to someone else, MS showcasing this tech to their existing userbase with no desire in providing experiences that their userbase wants. There's no reason to create just casual games for Kinect, and developers should be targeting core gamers too. It's also in MS's interest to offer something for the core gamers because they already have 40 million XB360s out in the wild and getting the majority of them to buy into Kinect is nigh essential for the platform. If the intention was only ever to provide an experience that the core gamer couldn't understand and had no interest in, MS have shot themselves in the foot.
ShadowRunner
Veteran
I dont agree that the barrier to non-gamers is the controller. It is the experience. Wii sports did not sell on the back of people no longer being frightened of a traditional controller, it sold because it offered an experience that apealed to non gamers. The controller enabled the new experience. Motion control was apealing on its own, it is wrong to say motion controls appeal was bassed on people being frieghtened of traditional controls. In fact the sales of NSMBW and Galaxy show that if the experience is apealing people dont mind using traditional control.
It is another leap entirely to then go on and say that removing the controller totally is what people want, because controllers scared them away. If the experience is appealing to non-gamers it will sell on the back of that experience, not people are suddenly not scared of a bit of plastic.
It is another leap entirely to then go on and say that removing the controller totally is what people want, because controllers scared them away. If the experience is appealing to non-gamers it will sell on the back of that experience, not people are suddenly not scared of a bit of plastic.
- Status
Similar threads
