Optional "advanced" controller headed to the XB 360 at some point.

[Shifty Geezer]

One or more extra flags to consider would be an added layer of complexity, no?

It's not a layer. It's another option on the existing layer. It's not really a complexity either. It's a single extra choice to make, at the beginning of the game with the game pairing service. If adding one 'IF' statement is reason enough to drop a feature, there's a lazy bunch of people running the matching service!

And how would your work around be fairly applied to online game rankings? Would you rank a mouse user higher or lower than a gamepad user if all of their other stats are equal?

Dunno. I guess it depends how the rankings are measured. If they're relative, so you get points versus the people you fight against, and everyone's fighting on an even footing, the ranking will be okay as is. Would ranking really be something to concern yourself with though? As a developer, if you felt KB+M would give players of your game a better experience, would you not provide that for the sake of them scoring higher points on a league table than people without those abilities? Surely the game experience is more important than the fairness of a table's rankings, but I don't know how seriously people take those and if there'd be a furore when KB+M players top the table and standard Controller players complain. Personally if I were playing a game with controller and someone else played with KB+M, if we weren't paired against each other so I was fodder, I wouldn't care if they score more points than me. Maybe I'm the minority and most people would be upset if they can't top the table because of a difference in gameplay methods?

 

[StefanS]

The rollerball seems the obvious solution. I don't know what other 'adjustments' could be made to the right thumbstick. Has anyone used such a rollerball? Does it work well under the thumb? It'd have to be very sensitive unless you were to roll it wildly.

Did you ever use a trackball? It's probably very similar to it. Trackballs are fine to use for normal mouse control, i.e. not too hectic gameplay (strategy, etc.). But I can imagine using one in a FPS.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A trackball is whole hand though, and you roll it lots. I imagine this thumb-ball which need to work end-to-end within the range of the player's thumb, kinda like an analogue stick but more sensitive and accurate. Or you have it so you have to roll the ball lots, which I can't imagine being amazingly accurate with a thumb, but you never know 'til you try!

 

[Acert93]

To me, all these add-ons and hardware patches tell about lack of focus - trailing the competitors and adding along if they see a feature the competitors are succesfully implementing.

Interesting way to look at it.

Others of us look at it like this:

We want a game console that is powerful and cheap. If other consumers want to be BETA testers for unproven, un-standard technologies and implimentations (HD Media formats, 3D controllers, etc) and want to pay Hundreds of dollars more to be a BETA tester then that is fine with me.

Allowing consumers to choose what new, fledgling products that benefit a very small segment of the target audiance they add-on is a good choice. Why pay $200 extra on a console for HD DVD when you won't use it? Let those who want it pay for it.

As for your other comments: There are certain features that are "choice" and others that are core to the gaming experience. And then there are all forms of shades of grey. HDD were thought to be "core" to various gaming experiences, but developer implimentation puts it more into the grey area.

Depending on the game and consumer what feature is necessary or superfalous will vary widely, but I think it is pretty safe to say, based on BluRay and HD DVD sales, that right now there is no significant market demand at this time for various reasons (cost, small media selection, HDTV install base, media quality issues, no standard, etc). The Wii-mote still has the jury out as there are no games out yet to test the quality of the device.

Personally I like MS's approach of leaving out new, expensive, buggy, and DMR loaded technology out of the core hardware. Let gamers with cash to burn and willingness to throw away money on unproven technologies do so and let the rest of us save more money (for games!) and enjoy the target purpose of the platform: games.

Of course MS continues the stupid line on KB/MS support (the obvious solution to a number of input issues) and could learn a thing or two from Sony by allowing 3rd party RETAIL HDD additions. But I see nothing wrong with addons like FF Wheels and new FPS-Oriented controllers or media addons as separate and distinct from the main platform. Each side has their pluses.

 

[Acert93]

Did you ever use a trackball? It's probably very similar to it. Trackballs are fine to use for normal mouse control, i.e. not too hectic gameplay (strategy, etc.). But I can imagine using one in a FPS.

Ahem, I have been using Trackballs for over a decade and have found many to be excellent for gaming. It all depends on the model and implimentation. The Logitech Marble Mouse, MS Intelli Mouse Trackball, MS Trackball Explorer, etc are all really great for gaming. A nice TB has very high sensativity and you just adjust the settings for your personal tastes.

As for the gamepad above, here is some gameplay footage of a game using the controller.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than using your thumb for fine motor movements on a wobbly stick with odd resistance feedback.

A trackball is whole hand though, and you roll it lots. I imagine this thumb-ball which need to work end-to-end within the range of the player's thumb, kinda like an analogue stick but more sensitive and accurate. Or you have it so you have to roll the ball lots, which I can't imagine being amazingly accurate with a thumb, but you never know 'til you try!

There are quite a few thumb based trackballs. I personally dislike them due to general positioning/ergonomics and I find fingertip based approaches more compatible with gaming.

I am certain a thumb-ball style design WILL have some limitations. It is never going to be just as good as a really nice mouse and KB. But we are talking about degrees of "good" and it is hard to believe a properly configured TB would be worse than a gamepad. Based on the IGN comments and feedback they really liked it. Sure, you won't have the wicked fast frantic triple 360 turns in a flash of an eye, but then again we don't have that with gamepads either. The TB should allow faster rotation on the X-axis (until the Gamepad software accelerate kicks in or you have to lift your thumb off the TB, which could well be after a full 360 if it is as sensative as desktop TBs) and it will be more percise on fine grain adjustments.

 

[pc999]

This is good news IMO.

I first thought in the reflex controler too, that with some motion sensing tech (even if not as good as Wii/DS3) could be very nice for some extra features too.

But they do have a big problem they already have a standard controler why would devs invest on this and I would costumers invest on this is dev will not.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Where does the excitment come from in Halo in your opinion?, lack of precision aiming? Seriously I'm asking, I never found any excitement in the game so I wouldn't know.

The challenge makes it exciting, the awesome AI especially. Have you ever played it on legendary?

 

[Titanio]

We want a game console that is powerful and cheap. If other consumers want to be BETA testers for unproven, un-standard technologies and implimentations (HD Media formats, 3D controllers, etc) and want to pay Hundreds of dollars more to be a BETA tester then that is fine with me.

Allowing consumers to choose what new, fledgling products that benefit a very small segment of the target audiance they add-on is a good choice.

This is slippery slope, though.

The exact same argument can be made about HD generally. If I'm a SDTV owner, do I really want to be paying for (or 'beta testing') these more powerful, "unproven" CPUs and GPUs just so developers can target the small minority that has HDTVs? And so on.

Consoles are not ala carte. In the end, it is up to MS and Sony and Nintendo to define what their system is and what it requires. MS has considered that standard HDDs, motion sensing and next-gen optical discs are not necessary parts of their games machine. Who is yet to say they're right, or wrong? Who's to judge the usefulness or worthiness of these features just because MS decided not to include them? They've taken a risk by not doing so. Sony has also taken a risk, but not so much with the functionality of the system, but its cost.

 

[Powderkeg]

It's not a layer. It's another option on the existing layer. It's not really a complexity either. It's a single extra choice to make, at the beginning of the game with the game pairing service. If adding one 'IF' statement is reason enough to drop a feature, there's a lazy bunch of people running the matching service!

But it would be much more than adding an "IF" statement.

First you would have to program the game to detect which controller you were using. Second you would have to support more than 1 controller type in the game. Third you would have to attach that controller configuration to your online filters, then add in the ability for the host to filter out certain types of controllers or not, and finally you would ahve to transmit that setting to the matchmaking service.

On the matchmaking side you would have add in the multiple controllers as options and filtering based on the host options.

That's a bit more than simply adding an "IF" statement.

Dunno. I guess it depends how the rankings are measured. If they're relative, so you get points versus the people you fight against, and everyone's fighting on an even footing, the ranking will be okay as is. Would ranking really be something to concern yourself with though?

If you are a developer with a ranking system, then yes, rankings is something you have to be concerned about. If you are a player who plays in ranked games then yes, ranking is something to be concerned about.

As a developer, if you felt KB+M would give players of your game a better experience, would you not provide that for the sake of them scoring higher points on a league table than people without those abilities?

I wouldn't judge something as opinion-based as "experience." If the mouse offered an advantage over a gamepad I would treat it the same way I would any other option that offers an advantage, which is ranking those who use it lower than those who don't.

Surely the game experience is more important than the fairness of a table's rankings,

Not in regards to online ranking. Cheats can add to some peoples "game experience" but they are forbidden from use in ranked games.

Maybe I'm the minority and most people would be upset if they can't top the table because of a difference in gameplay methods?

Since you don't seem to care about rankings, I think it's pretty obvious as to if you are a minority or not in regards to people who prefer to play ranked games.

 

[StefanS]

Ahem, I have been using Trackballs for over a decade and have found many to be excellent for gaming. It all depends on the model and implimentation. The Logitech Marble Mouse, MS Intelli Mouse Trackball, MS Trackball Explorer, etc are all really great for gaming. A nice TB has very high sensativity and you just adjust the settings for your personal tastes.

As for the gamepad above, here is some gameplay footage of a game using the controller.

It couldn't possibly be any worse than using your thumb for fine motor movements on a wobbly stick with odd resistance feedback.

I think you've misunderstood me. I've never said that it is better than your standard analogue stick. However, it's still a long shot from the trusted mouse+keyboard combination. Personally, I've found trackballs severly lacking for fast paced games that require a lot of "cursor" movement. But then again I am not the best finger-coordinate gamer.

As for the footage, it would've been nice to see how the thing is used properly.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Interesting way to look at it.

Others of us look at it like this:

We want a game console that is powerful and cheap. If other consumers want to be BETA testers for unproven, un-standard technologies and implimentations (HD Media formats, 3D controllers, etc) and want to pay Hundreds of dollars more to be a BETA tester then that is fine with me.

Allowing consumers to choose what new, fledgling products that benefit a very small segment of the target audiance they add-on is a good choice. Why pay $200 extra on a console for HD DVD when you won't use it? Let those who want it pay for it.

As for your other comments: There are certain features that are "choice" and others that are core to the gaming experience. And then there are all forms of shades of grey. HDD were thought to be "core" to various gaming experiences, but developer implimentation puts it more into the grey area.

Depending on the game and consumer what feature is necessary or superfalous will vary widely, but I think it is pretty safe to say, based on BluRay and HD DVD sales, that right now there is no significant market demand at this time for various reasons (cost, small media selection, HDTV install base, media quality issues, no standard, etc). The Wii-mote still has the jury out as there are no games out yet to test the quality of the device.

Personally I like MS's approach of leaving out new, expensive, buggy, and DMR loaded technology out of the core hardware. Let gamers with cash to burn and willingness to throw away money on unproven technologies do so and let the rest of us save more money (for games!) and enjoy the target purpose of the platform: games.

Of course MS continues the stupid line on KB/MS support (the obvious solution to a number of input issues) and could learn a thing or two from Sony by allowing 3rd party RETAIL HDD additions. But I see nothing wrong with addons like FF Wheels and new FPS-Oriented controllers or media addons as separate and distinct from the main platform. Each side has their pluses.

Others? You really believe you are in a position to speak on behalf of others, giving the impression I'm alone vs. you others?

About the rest of your post; I think it should be clear by now the PS3 is not intended to be a a sole core gaming experience. Sony themselves has stated this on several occasions.
It is a high definition Blu-ray player, gaming machine, computeretc... like it or not.

The HDD might not be core to the xbox360 experience, but it is to the PS3 experience.
So, because MS decided not to make it standard, it cannot be counted as a "core" feature any more??

Several developers have said the Blu-ray is a good choice for games too, us who have yet to get our hands on one are free to doubt of course, but that's the road Sony took with PS3 and that's what we're being offered, not forced.

What about Online? Is it not a core feature because MS are "forcing" us to pay for online experience or else it's basically useless to the core gaming experience like the free Live? MS has said online is in the DNA of xbox experience, then why are they "forcing" us to pay extra before our xbox360 truly lives. Shouldn't the console be fully operational when I pay for it in the shop counter.

Why, if I buy the "core" version, am I forced to buy the HDD separately if I want to play online games, that is the "core" and DNA of xbox360.
Why is the core version "forced" to me if I'm going to buy the HDD later anyway? Do they think I'm that poor I can't afford the extra $100 or so.

The question:
Had Sony priced the console lower, would you still say "they are forcing us Blu-ray, HDMI, HDD, Wi-Fi, Linux, memcard slots etc.."
It's the Blu-ray, isn't it? Is it because some feel insecure that maybe the standard DVD won't cut it any more when games get bigger (do they need to get bigger is another matter, but then you'd surely wait for the "Phantom" ).

The cost of Blu-ray on PS3 is what? $100? less?
Remember, there is also the PS3 "core" version (that's still offering the Blu-ray, among others).

See, you can interpret "forcing" in many ways.
Either forcing by giving us something (can I say "give" because it has a positive tone to it?) we might not need,
or forcing us by denying the full experience until I pay more.

It's not about forcing, it's about pricing, though I'd rather talk about "offering" (hey, I'm allowed be creative with wording too )

Seriously, should we really adopt the wording of those PR persons here, in these forums, when their intentions are obvious.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Funny, so only when Sony includes a HDD does it become a core feature.

So what was PS2 last gen when it had no HDD?

Acert's point is simple "some people just want to play games", PS3 offers nothing for those people except one extremely expensive console with a bunch of features they do not need.

 

[Titanio]

Funny, so only when Sony includes a HDD does it become a core feature.

So what was PS2 last gen when it had no HDD?

Acert's point is simple "some people just want to play games", PS3 offers nothing for those people except one extremely expensive console with a bunch of features they do not need.

But 360 is forcing most people to pay for things they don't need too!

Who decides these things? If you want an a la carte console, build a PC.

And I for one am not casting judgement (here, at least) on the necessity of x y or z. I'm saying it's a risk not to include x y or z, and that it's only something one can judge in the fullness of time. Yet many are more than happy to write off certain things as useless 'forced' technologies, simply because they've made an investment and thus are more inclined to hope - and impress upon others - that MS is correct. We don't know yet one way or another.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Funny, so only when Sony includes a HDD does it become a core feature.

So what was PS2 last gen when it had no HDD?

Acert's point is simple "some people just want to play games", PS3 offers nothing for those people except one extremely expensive console with a bunch of features they do not need.

You're missing it.
This is about this ("next") gen, not about PS2 and xbox.

You could as well say "what was PS2 last gen when it had no built in online capability" or "what was PS2 last gen when it had no Blu-ray" or "what was xbox last gen when it didn't have all the freedom of choice last gen" or "what was xbox last gen when it had no faceplates".

That was last gen. PS3 and xbox360 are next steps on the paths of the respective companies, evolving and improving from last gen.

"So what was PS2 last gen when it had no HDD?" just tells me you view that path in your point of view as one of revenge and one-upping.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

First you would have to program the game to detect which controller you were using. Second you would have to support more than 1 controller type in the game.

Those two points are seperate to the question of dropping support based on a filter. From Alstrong

They could always make a keyboard/mouse filter for online games.

and then thenefariousone

Sure - but why would they add an extra layer of complexity when they are targetting the majority, many of whom have little interest in playing console games with a mouse and keyboard?

Adding an extra filter option in the online aspect is just an IF statement (or maybe SELECT ) if you've already got you matchup engine filtering on other criteria.

Third you would have to attach that controller configuration to your online filters, then add in the ability for the host to filter out certain types of controllers or not, and finally you would ahve to transmit that setting to the matchmaking service.

You make that sound like a lot of effort, but it isn't really. Kinda like if I want to pop down the shops to buy a drink I have to

Shut down the computer
Go downstairs
Put my left shoe on
Put my right shoe on
Turn the door handle
Open the door
go outside
Close the door behind me
Start walking down the road using a process of alternating left and right foot motions
...

well I'll stop there because there's no point dragging that on. Depending how you break down a task, it can sound long and involved. If the engine already has filters for players based on abilitiy and score, adding another filter in that selection process for the control scheme employed is trivial.

Since you don't seem to care about rankings, I think it's pretty obvious as to if you are a minority or not in regards to people who prefer to play ranked games.

Hence my enquiry. How are rankings scored though? Taking an FPS, in multiplayer, depending on the game mode, I guess a gamer is ranked on kills and deaths and the like. If the KB+M are separated so everyone plays a level on the same footing, won't the rankings be naturally balanced? If they need to be weighted the devs could add a handicapping system.

I can't imagine it's an insurmountable job to get a representative ranking system from players with different control schemes if it was something very wanted, and not a reason to abandon alternative control schemes altogether.

 

[scooby_dooby]

You could as well say "what was PS2 last gen when it had no built in online capability" or "what was PS2 last gen when it had no Blu-ray" or "what was xbox last gen when it didn't have all the freedom of choice last gen" or "what was xbox last gen when it had no faceplates".

And the answer to all those questions would be the same thing "A gaming machine" that's the point. At the core, these things are meant to play games and there are still many many people who only want to do that, PS2's success last generation is proof of that.

 

[rabidrabbit]

What is the "core" of each machine is up to the marketing, and later up to what you end up using the machine for most and whether you enjoy using it for those features.

If for example, xbox360 was used in a family 60% of the time playing Live Arcade games, 20% for xbox360 games, 20% for viewing DVD's, 0% for xbox backwards copatibilty and 0% for viewing photos and listening music, is the "core" of the machine simple arcade games that could be played on a much cheaper machine and not worrying about being forced other features.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

At the core, these things are meant to play games.

That's not what PS3 is intended as though. If all you want to do is play games, PS3 doesn't make a sensible choice unless you're really keen on it's exclusives. If you want to do more, like watch HD movies, then it starts to make more sense. And that's what was intended for PlayStation - the entertainment station of your home and not just a box to play games on.

Acert and Titanio both make smart points, and both are just different POVs. Offering optional upgrades to let people choose the features they want is a nice range of choice. Providing a finite hardware set that defines your system and gives people a complete solution option to consider is very traditional and expected. Not using the latest technology means not adding cost for unproven features. Adding the latest technology adds cost but also adds value to the system providing for those interested and helping to grow that sector. Bear in mind that most new ideas start small, and if not following them because the market was too niche were fair thinking, we wouldn't have HDTV or iPods or mobile phones. When these techs first came out, there was negligable market for them. Why bother broadcasting an HDTV channel when 99% of your audience don't have HDTV? It's a chicken and egg situation. In releasing and developing the ideas, the market grew, or is growing, around them.

What we have is just different preferences and ideas as to what a console should be. As both MS and Sony have different ideas on that point themselves, those on either side will find a machine more suited to their preferences. There's no right nor wrong way for these machines to be. Giving people an a la carte solution is just as valid as giving them a complete, finite package. The only concern with piece-meal creations is lack of support for extras. An optional extra won't get the same level of backing as a standard pack-in resource. But that's one of the downsides to providing your audience with the upside of being cheaper - one of the downsides to having more standard features is a more costly system!

 

[scooby_dooby]

PS3 doesn't make a sensible choice unless you're really keen on it's exclusives.

Well that's exactly what some people feel is the problem with Sony's strategy.

100million people bought systems last generation that could do nothing else other than play games, had no built in HDD, and no NIC.

With the 360 it makes 'sense' for almost all users, granted the 360 may be marginally more expensive to upgrade to PS3 levels, but it is still possible. So 360 seems targeted at a much wider audience, including casual gamers as well as the AV enthusiast who wished to upgrade.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

100million people bought systems last generation that could do nothing else other than play games, had no built in HDD, and no NIC.

PS2's multimedia capabilities were very limited, and nothing like the full Play Station, but the DVD player got a lot of use, certainly in the early days. I don't think it safe to say 'existing owners of PS only play games, ergo that's all they'll want PS3 for'. Just as the Mobile Phone industry has added features to mobiles that weren't used in earlier mobiles before those features were available but they've taken off. What the market as a whole really wants hasn't been determined yet. Each of the console makers is thinking they can win the public over with a different strategy, and the one that wins out of 'new experiences', 'cheapest high-tech solution' and 'costly all in one device' will be determined on the battlefield. Although, they may not be trying to win over the public so much as make lots of money. If a console doesn't come first place in sales, but gets it's company more dough than they're rivals, they'll probably count that as a win even if the Internet doesn't.