Sony's possible answer to the NR controller

[Shifty Geezer]

Despite this thread being more Sony/Nintendo bickering than discussion of technology, I'll thrown in my points.

I rate EyeToy2 as more technologically advanced than Rev controller. Rev controller uses established techs, motion sensors and triangulation, to work. EyeToy and EyeToy2 are using image recognition techniques. Well EyeToy 1 was very crude in that way, but EyeToy2 and Cell and ideally suited seeing as SPEs are good at image processing. If you saw the article a while back on using Cell for graphics there was a system to remove the background from an image so you were left with only the moving person and a blue ground, which could be colour compositied with other surrounding. To get EyeToy2 working well might be harder such as needing more light. I don't know what it's infrared mode (if it realy exists) is like.

EyeToy2 can provide new alternative interactive gameplays as the wand demo shows Interacting with a game through motions as though you're standing in the screen is AFAIK something not really done before. Rev controller allows from the off some different play models such as point-and-shoot. That said, perhaps EyeToy can manage the same with a gun and optical cues like red light up front, green light behind, working out a vector that the gun is pointing along? There was talk of using props before.

As for EyeToy2 being a peripheral, it's been mnetioned it comes as standard with PS3. It should be there in every PS3 owners house and every game will have access to it. The rev controller has no advantage in that respect.

The key difference in my mind is how these sytems are used. Revolution HAS to use the controller in different ways as there's little else to use without selling peripherals. Unless games are limited to D-pad and a fire button. Nintendo will be driving different games and hopefully attracting 3rd parties to do the same. For PS3, though EyeToy is included it's likely to be much less used. Unless Sony provide a reasonable library devs are going to need to create their own image filtering and motion detection systems which is an extra pain. The Rev OTOH just returns position and direction values directly.

As we've already seen, PS3 is accruing lots of games but how many are boasting use of Eyetoy? How many incorporate Augmented Reality or player-movement based interactivity? Does the camera in MGS drop down when the flinches? Can you peer around corners by leaning to the side? There's been no talk of such AFAIK. That's not to say it won't make it into the final game, but there's no word. Whereas you can be sure Rev will have motion based games because, as I said, there's nothing much there to supprt non-motion control

That said, the DS hasn't really been flooded with unique innovative games. Much that it has can be run on any old console or handheld, with a few touch-menus which a cursor could manage just as well, even though the hardware offers more variety. Perhaps the presence of conventional controls has kept devs 'playing it safe', something that they won't really be able to do on Rev?

In summary, EyeToy2 might well have as much potential as Rev controller, though with different strengths and weaknesses, but how well it'll be used as such is an unknown. Even if it's assumed to be included with the PS3 as standard.

 

[Acert93]

Some of the most important inventions have not been necessarily technologically advanced. Effective is the most important aspect, and if a practical method is as effective as a complex one then the practical method wins. Just look at the simplicity of the D-pad. 8 directions. That is it. (9 counting none). Yet it works. You can actually play a lot of modern games with a D-pad quite effectively as well.

This is where I see EyeToy and Rev taking divergent paths. With Rev you wont have to sit right in front of a camera.

And look at head tracking. One issue with headtracking is when you turn your head your eyes turn which is not natural. Obviously developers can accelerate the movement with small head turns and wide screen big screen TVs would minimize some of this. Yet you are still asking someone to be very careful with how they move their head for long periods of time. To compare, one could put Rev in their lap and support their arm with their body if they got tired.

An issue for both will be percision. If Rev is not percise it will stink--at least for quick action games. If EyeToy cannot capture enough samples and interpolate movements accurately the same problem exists.

While EyeToy2 may be much more advanced technologically, I see Rev as being open to more gameplay formats. FPS, sports, RTS, racing, RPGs, etc... If Rev can accomplish the tasks it is put forth to do, and does them well, then a more advanced system is unecessary.

While augmented reality looks REALLY cool, from a practical standpoint I think having a control scheme that benefits a large number of existing, and very popular, genres is important. Both open up new experiences and possibly genres, but to gain acceptance there needs to be that bridge. Mario 64 did that with the N64 controller. FPS were that for the dual analog designs.

And like Shifty said, the fact every Rev game will pretty much have to use the controller is an advantage.

That said, an EyeToy device, Mic, and Rev controller all in one package would open up a lot of doors. I am not sure Rev will ship with a camera, but I think there is a good chance that it will have a Mic.

 

[mckmas8808]

Good post Shifty. A poster at GAF had this to say.

I saw this session at Siggraph. The best part was when he used the infra-red eye toy to control an avatar manipulating a punching bag on screen. Not sure that was mentioned in the article, but it was really cool. At one point, the punching bag swung in back of him and he ducked, causing it to get stuck behind the avatar.

Sounds quite nice.

 

[Guden Oden]

Of course eyetoy is more advanced than Rev's remote control thingy, eyetoy2 might even be hugely more advanced, if it truly does HD res images as has been rumored on discussion boards (though I somehow doubt it simply because it would be too damn good to be true).

That's not what matters though. What really matters is, does the increased technical complexity lead to a subsequent increased immersiveness and enjoyment of the games played? If the game being played is an aerobics workout title, I'm sure full body mocap with background removal and the whole shebang is the way to go. Dance dance revolution could do some funky graphics stuff, you wouldn't even need to buy a mat, the screen graphics could supply one. However, for most other situations we don't need to interact with a game with our entire body. Most of the time we don't even want to.

If powderkeg's so worried that sneezes or random posture shifts will hamper gameplay with a motion sensitive remote control, imagine what'll happen in a FPS that does headtracking... Do I want to turn my head to look around corners? The TV doesn't turn with me after all so I'd have to strain my eyes if I actually want to see what I see around the corner, or else the motion capture routines have to be very sensitive, so that just a slight turn of the head makes the on-screen graphics shift to look around corners. However, that would force the user to hold the head very still to stop the view from jumping around due to all those little movements we naturally do even when sitting. It would quickly become extremely uncomfortable.

Of course, there could be a button that you press when you want to look around corners, that'll enable the headtracking, but heck, in that case why not just make the button do the turning for us as well?

No, I'd rather just move my hand as if I was moving my head, rather than actually move my head. Eyetoy is a great input device, but for other stuff. It'll rock in RTSes or boxing games or a bunch of other things. It's not inherently superior through being more complex however, especially as it's almost certainly going to be a peripheral device and not included as standard. Current eyetoy has to fight against being a peripheral device AND eating up a substantial amount of CPU power, one can only hope that because mocap is rather effortlessly accomplished by Cell, that'll enable more games to use eyetoy input, but it'll still only be a peripheral. I wonder if that won't limit the device's usefulness... I'll get one regardless of course (I bought an eyetoy despite I never use it), but I'm a loony geek and most people aren't like me.

 

[DeanoC]

Optical point tracking used to be used for motion capture, but generally isn't these days for the obvious issue of occlusion. For example the simple example of a golf game, is almost impossible using a single camera.

Sorry but eye-toy and the rev controller aren't comparable. The have totally different pro's and con's. Eye toy is able to extract complex image data, potentially tracking a number of points simulatanously but the resolution and accuracy is fairly low. Rev is able to track one point (or maybe two with a second controller) but with extreme accuracy and reliability.

The Rev controller is very interesting as it much seems to be able to deliver a much better data set. Its (if the hype hold ups...) capable of delivering a full 3D path with rotational data without any lose in signal due to occlusion.

 

[Squeak]

What some of Marks demos are showing with eyetoy/psp+cam is AR or Augmented Reality, which is much more innovative and bleeding edge than a 3D gyro mouse.

Bleeding edge?! The first VR system ever was AR back in 68 FFS!

The algorithms involved and technology required are much more advanced than what Nintendo requires to make their device work.

If that is true does that make it better somehow, and more important is it more precise? The 1 percent CPU time I would guess, is from basic PS2like tracking, not full "understanding" of a 3d scene. After all, this is something AI researchers are still trying to do reliably.
How does eyetoy know accurate z anyway? I heard something about infrared. Is that like a camera with stereo pair matching? Then that is not very accurate, at least not in the 2d plane, and slow too.

The Revolution controller can detect even small changes (better than a mouse some say), but the eyetoy relies on a immobile camera with a relatively coarse resolution, hence you will have to really wave your arms around to make it precise enough.

The reflective sticker/surface on a controller might work a little better, but there is still no tilt detector, which I reckon is going to be a very important part of accurate tracking.

 

[SGX-1]

Despite this thread being more Sony/Nintendo bickering than discussion of technology, I'll thrown in my points.

I rate EyeToy2 as more technologically advanced than Rev controller. Rev controller uses established techs, motion sensors and triangulation, to work. EyeToy and EyeToy2 are using image recognition techniques.

As everyone has been saying, how does it being more advanced translate to better immersion/control?

EyeToy2 can provide new alternative interactive gameplays as the wand demo shows Interacting with a game through motions as though you're standing in the screen is AFAIK something not really done before. Rev controller allows from the off some different play models such as point-and-shoot. That said, perhaps EyeToy can manage the same with a gun and optical cues like red light up front, green light behind, working out a vector that the gun is pointing along? There was talk of using props before.

So for a game like house construction, you'd have to buy a plastic hammer prop? What about a cooking game? Will you have to buy a spatula to flip patties?

That said, the DS hasn't really been flooded with unique innovative games. Much that it has can be run on any old console or handheld, with a few touch-menus which a cursor could manage just as well, even though the hardware offers more variety. Perhaps the presence of conventional controls has kept devs 'playing it safe', something that they won't really be able to do on Rev?

Actually the unique control of the DS compared to the PSP is garnering very good ideas and fun games. Look at how the DS is selling and how games like Nintendogs are selling. PSP even with it's more *advanced* hardware can only sit and wonder why it's selling half as many DS's in Japan each weak and none of it's games are even on the top 20.

Do I want to turn my head to look around corners? The TV doesn't turn with me after all so I'd have to strain my eyes if I actually want to see what I see around the corner, or else the motion capture routines have to be very sensitive, so that just a slight turn of the head makes the on-screen graphics shift to look around corners. However, that would force the user to hold the head very still to stop the view from jumping around due to all those little movements we naturally do even when sitting. It would quickly become extremely uncomfortable.

Bingo...that's why VR goggles with built-in head tracking is much better than a tracking camera since the display moves with your head.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Having just seen the Rev controller vid, the one looking from he TV at players, you gain a sense of how it's expected to be used. As a frying pan handle, golf club, sword, fishing rod... Some of these can be done on EyeToy, some not so well. Use of props seems important to EyeToy though. A frying pan would need a visual 'pan' of sorts, and likewise a sword would need a handle. The golf club...well, as Deano says occlusion makes things rather difficult. Certainly I see the two systems having some similarities and some differences. It'd be intersting to try and think of what these re. I'm gonna post a list of games and how they're be handled. Feel free to chuck in ideas...

1) Racer
Often people move in their chair to see vor hills or round corners during driving games. EyeToy will be able to make the right camera change. I'd guess Rev will be used as a steering wheel. I don't think it could be comfortably used for changing camera view. You'd have to move your arms rather than head to look over the hill.

2) FPS
As has been said, Rev will allow great camera movements. The torch (flahlight) idea is very cool too. You would actually point your gun + it's light for some very atmospheric low-light situations (and incidentally, why do people walk into dark alien infested areas with tiddly little torches? Why not use large 1+ million candle power room-filling lamps that illuminate entire buildings??). EyeToy couldn't manage this though it might manage duck and peep moves from the player's body movements

3) Football (Soccer)
Can't really see either offering a great gameplay option. Though EyeToy will be great for customized teams where you scan yourself in

4) RTS
Both will offer a mouse-like interface. Either EyeToy arm movements to select troops, or a Rev pointer. It'll be cool if you could maneouvre units by circling and drawing lines, like a sports play.

5) Platformers
Again i don't see either offering something great in the platformer deparment. If the Rev's motion control is integrated well it could benefit controller wagglers like my sis, who waves the controller a foot into the air every time she wants the character to jump. You could use controller motion to determine how excited the player is, and perhaps augment character moves, maybe jumping higher when the controller's waved+jump button compared with just jump button.

6) Party games
Both can do all sorts here! Though separate Rev controllers would be far better for multiplayer than trying to distinguish multiple players on the same image which is the most important thing in party games.

7) Fighters
Like the original EyeToy, fighting with the camera could place you in the action where you control the character with your own motions. That has the wonderful gameplay of limiting Heihachi, Nina, Baek friends to the useless skills of yourself . Rev seem to me at a disadvantage in this genre, at least in placing you in the thick of things.

8) Other stuff.
EyeToy offers quite a lot of other things. There's talk of reading facial expression. I don't know how well this'll ever be implemented on PS3. I'm skeptical. The theory might be there but in an actual game situation I'm not sure it'd be reliable. Then there's the possibility of using props. eg. Two foam swords could be used for two-player combat, and the players get to hit each other which perhaps has their PS3 virtual scanned-in counterparts have arms and legs chopped off. The downside to this is the need for props in the first place. Rev can handle, with greater ease and accuracy for the devs, all these things. Just off the top of my head you could have a lasso simulation in a wild-west game spinning the Rev controller in the air, and use the same controller for a quickdraw high-noon gunfight. EyeToy couldn't really manage this as is, but then you could do a good bar-room brawl with it which the Rev wouldn't be as well suited to.

If EyeToy has got depth detection it can incorporate the room's furniture. Take a snapshot of the room without any players and you have some surfaces included. You could create virtual pets on screen alive in the gamer's room that walk on the couch and can be pushed off. Think of the recent Sims TV advert. This augmented reality is only possible with a camera, though it's an unknown how well it could be implemented. Augmented reality demo's to date have used long setups recording the scenery.



Well that's some thoughts. I think both are quite different but also have some overlap, potentially anyway until we see what EyeToy is actually providing by way of info for devs. Oh, and high tech doesn't mean better than low-tech. Even though EyeToy2 is a higher tech than Rev's motion and triangulation systems doesn't mean it's the preferred model. Often low tech can be better - more reliable and predictable. And sometimes low tech manages in far less resources what high tech does, like the NASA Space Pen vs. the Russian Pencil

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Bleeding edge?! The first VR system ever was AR back in 68 FFS!

Augmented Reality is bleeding edge. It's combining virtual 3D graphics with real world environments. eg. Imagine you have a coffee table infront of you and the eyeToy shows on the TV your room, with coffee table and you behind it. On the TV screen, stood upon the coffee table, is a 3D rendering of a dog. You can move your hand to pet the dog, pick the dog up, throw it in the air. Your actions in you room are as they would be if interacting with this dog. Or you could have virtual building blocks that you pile up, with little gremlins runnig around trying to knock your tower over.

there was an example some 6-12 months ago, from a French researcher, which I haven't found, but check out here
http://www.hitlabnz.org/route.php?r=page-view&page_name=movies
for some examples. I looked up 'AR Volcano' and 'AR Pancho' and they give a good idea of what AR offers.

 

[DemoCoder]

Bleeding edge?! The first VR system ever was AR back in 68 FFS!

Nonsense. AR != see through head mounted display. Although many people like to claim Sutherland's work was AR, it was AR in only the very weakest sense. AR was coined in an ACM article in '93, and the systems define since then include machine vision or sensor technology as a fundamental component. It is not enough to overlay 3D graphics on reality. The process has to be two way: reality must also be sampled and input into the system.

For example, in Sutherland's system, overlaid 3D objects would not properly collide with real world objects, nor be occluded by real world geometry.

The fact is, achieving AR is much harder than achieving a well engineered gyro mouse. From a computer science point of view, advances in AR are far more innovative and interesting than yet another refinement of pointing technology.

The Rev controlled may be more immediately useful, but I don't perceive it as anything fundamentally innovative. It's just a repackaging of well unknown technology for a mass produced consumer audience. And it's one that I perceive will be useful primarily for "gimmick games", just like the eye toy and dance pad games of today. And pretty soon, the gimmick of using the controller as a sword, fishingrod, or airplane is going to get old.

An input device should be invisible to the user once he starts using it, not draw attention to itself. Properly designed, the user should become one with it so that intentions are translated into actions.

This revolution controller just seems to me to not be something that is going to become second nature, since almost everygame will use it in a completely new and perhaps bizarre way, such that the control for it will have to be learned all over again. Oh, in game X, you need to slash with it, in game Y you need to flick it, in game Z use it to point like a gun, and in game W use it like a turret. etc Rather than just learning a new set of button mappings, users must learn new kinetics.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As everyone has been saying, how does it being more advanced translate to better immersion/control?

I never said it did. I was just pointing out EyeToy is 'higher tech'

So for a game like house construction, you'd have to buy a plastic hammer prop? What about a cooking game? Will you have to buy a spatula to flip patties?

Not necessarily. A single handle could be used for a hammer, frying pan, tennis racket. It can be used to communicate ptich and yaw, but not roll. Unless it had marking such as stripes to enable 3rd dimension rotation, in which case it could potential manage the model aeroplane example used for Rev's controller

Actually the unique control of the DS compared to the PSP is garnering very good ideas and fun games. Look at how the DS is selling and how games like Nintendogs are selling. PSP even with it's more *advanced* hardware can only sit and wonder why it's selling half as many DS's in Japan each weak and none of it's games are even on the top 20.

Ignoring irrlevant points about sales and use of control schemes where sales are based on LOTS of factors (or do you equate PS2 to outselling GC solely because people prefer it's controller?), how many games on DS are unique to it's control schemes? Nintendogs is one, and it does it well, as do a few others. But the glut of games still use conventional controls which was my point. Adding a tech doesn't mean it'll be used. Adding EyeToy doesn't mean it'll be used. Whereas Rev has the advantage that devs don't have the option to resort to D-Pad + 4 face buttons + 2 shoulder buttons for control. They'll have to write for the motion sensing, so Rev should well make more use of it's unique possibilities than DS has. EyeToy on the other hand will be competing with two analogue sticks + Dpad + 4 face buttons + 4 shoulder buttons for attention and it's likely most devs will stick with the known latter methods.

 

[mckmas8808]

Good examples Shifty. And I'm glad the Nintendo has went with this wacky, completly off the wall, different by every means idea. It should force Sony to impletment what they already have. They probably weren't going to push the HD eyetoy as much. Now it's like they will have too.

They can't afford to lose marketshare to somebody that is doing something a little similar to what you have researched and developed for years. Hopefully Sony's eyes lit up when they seen the Nintendo wand remote. If I was Ken K. I would have said "and now the eyetoy on the PS3 can be a true success". See the good thing is Nintendo will open the eyes to millions of console buyers with will indirectly make the next-gen eyetoy a more meaningful item.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The Rev controlled may be more immediately useful, but I don't perceive it as anything fundamentally innovative. It's just a repackaging of well unknown technology for a mass produced consumer audience.

One is reminded of Microsoft's own Gyro stick many years ago. The idea of using tilt in a controller isn't new by any stretch, and in the past it's failed to become mainstream. However back then the technology was fairly crude and inaccurate, whereas the Rev controll using modern techniques can produce a very useable result. Also the Rev controller isn't an optional extra so it'll be present and used from the beginning. Games wil be designed around it. The idea of including an accurate 6 degrees of freedom controller as standard is new and I regard it as innovative, for it WILL allow unique gaming that a traditional controller setup won't.

An input device should be invisible to the user once he starts using it, not draw attention to itself. Properly designed, the user should become one with it so that intentions are translated into actions.

True, but I feel the Rev controller achieves this. In the context of the game the movement of the controller will be intuitive. Casting a fishing rod or flipping a pancake or wielding a sword doesn't need any complex re-education. Much of where the Rev controller will be used will be with the same type of user input as augmented reality, moving your arm to controla virtual object as though it were in you hand.

 

[SGX-1]

And pretty soon, the gimmick of using the controller as a sword, fishingrod, or airplane is going to get old.

Maybe to you but every time I pop that SEGA Bass or Marine fishing game into my DC I plug in the fishing controller and everytime I pop that HOTD or Confidential Mission I plug in the lightgun. It never gets old. Playing those games with a standard controller does get boring and old and almost impossible for the lightgun games.

I never said it did. I was just pointing out EyeToy is 'higher tech'

Why point it out when it was never an issue and irrelevent to the gaming experience? Unless you were trying to insinuate more advanced equals better.

Not necessarily. A single handle could be used for a hammer, frying pan, tennis racket. It can be used to communicate ptich and yaw, but not roll. Unless it had marking such as stripes to enable 3rd dimension rotation, in which case it could potential manage the model aeroplane example used for Rev's controller

Then why hasn't it already been done with the Eyetoy games? How is that going to change with ET2?

Ignoring irrlevant points about sales and use of control schemes where sales are based on LOTS of factors (or do you equate PS2 to outselling GC solely because people prefer it's controller?), how many games on DS are unique to it's control schemes? Nintendogs is one, and it does it well, as do a few others. But the glut of games still use conventional controls which was my point. Adding a tech doesn't mean it'll be used. Adding EyeToy doesn't mean it'll be used. Whereas Rev has the advantage that devs don't have the option to resort to D-Pad + 4 face buttons + 2 shoulder buttons for control. They'll have to write for the motion sensing, so Rev should well make more use of it's unique possibilities than DS has. EyeToy on the other hand will be competing with two analogue sticks + Dpad + 4 face buttons + 4 shoulder buttons for attention and it's likely most devs will stick with the known latter methods.

Nintendogs would not have sold nearly as well as it did if it didn't use the stylus and voice control. Regardless nobody claimed this new controller is suited for every type of game that is released. The point is it's the main focus for Revolution so it will get many very fun games that make use of it. It also has "normal" controls.

 

[Stillmatic]

Wow, cheers for that HitLabNZ link Shifty, looks pretty cool. I had no idea it was developed here in NZ, same city as me too.

 

[V3]

Optical point tracking used to be used for motion capture, but generally isn't these days for the obvious issue of occlusion. For example the simple example of a golf game, is almost impossible using a single camera.

Sorry but eye-toy and the rev controller aren't comparable. The have totally different pro's and con's. Eye toy is able to extract complex image data, potentially tracking a number of points simulatanously but the resolution and accuracy is fairly low. Rev is able to track one point (or maybe two with a second controller) but with extreme accuracy and reliability.

The Rev controller is very interesting as it much seems to be able to deliver a much better data set. Its (if the hype hold ups...) capable of delivering a full 3D path with rotational data without any lose in signal due to occlusion.

There is no reason why you can't combine them together to make an interesting game.

Anyway, as I see it, there are alot of UI functions in Eye toy and Rev controller that overlap. And there are functions that are still exclusive to each.

 

[V3]

Good examples Shifty. And I'm glad the Nintendo has went with this wacky, completly off the wall, different by every means idea. It should force Sony to impletment what they already have. They probably weren't going to push the HD eyetoy as much. Now it's like they will have too.

They can't afford to lose marketshare to somebody that is doing something a little similar to what you have researched and developed for years. Hopefully Sony's eyes lit up when they seen the Nintendo wand remote. If I was Ken K. I would have said "and now the eyetoy on the PS3 can be a true success". See the good thing is Nintendo will open the eyes to millions of console buyers with will indirectly make the next-gen eyetoy a more meaningful item.

Nintendo Rev controller technology is relatively simple compare to AR, that if Microsoft feels threaten by it, they can add it as one of their peripheral (perhaps like how Sony did Eye Toy) for 360 for this November/December launch.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why point it out when it was never an issue and irrelevent to the gaming experience? Unless you were trying to insinuate more advanced equals better.

Or perhaps I haven't a personal agenda and I was discussion technical points on a technical forum? Whereas your posts are entirely pro-Nintendo/anti-Sony propaganda with a closed mine and inability to see pros and cons for different technologies.

Then why hasn't it already been done with the Eyetoy games? How is that going to change with ET2?

Due to processing requirements. The required algorithms for filtering objects from background and determining position are very intensive, but also ideally suited for the SPE's. Plus EyeToy2 adds higher resolution and infrared functionality to the hardware. Just as what can be achieved with GPUs and CPUs and motion detectors has improved over time, so to will what's possible with a camera, meaning Eyetoy2 can acheive more than EyeToy1, just as Rev's motion detectors are more accurate than Microsoft's old flight-stick. It's called progress .

Nintendogs would not have sold nearly as well as it did if it didn't use the stylus and voice control.

What has that got to do with what I said? I was talking about how well a different control system is used, not how well it is liked. The truth remains that despite having touch-screen input the majority of developers are still using traditional control interfaces with limited use of these functions. Please try to understand the concept here - how well will a control system be deveoped for, and not how well will it be appreciated by the gamers which is not a point I was addressing. And also it was more an example of how EyeToy2 won't get as much use because it's competing with a traditional controller system, so there's no need to get you Nintendo-knickers in a twist thinking I dissing the Rev controller.

The point is it's the main focus for Revolution so it will get many very fun games that make use of it. It also has "normal" controls.

Yes, on that we agree. Perhaps you didn't realise that that is what I was saying?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Nintendo Rev controller technology is relatively simple compare to AR, that if Microsoft feels threaten by it, they can add it as one of their peripheral (perhaps like how Sony did Eye Toy) for 360 for this November/December launch.

That still has the problem of being a peripheral though, and peripherals rarely garner enough of a user base to make huge inroads into games. Sony and Nintendo certainly seem to be offering more controller options from the off, whereas MS have taken a very traditional approach with focus on the online experience. Which is good diversity throughout the cosole market.

 

[mckmas8808]

Nintendogs would not have sold nearly as well as it did if it didn't use the stylus and voice control. Regardless nobody claimed this new controller is suited for every type of game that is released. The point is it's the main focus for Revolution so it will get many very fun games that make use of it. It also has "normal" controls.

Did you forget that your head can be the stylus. And a microphone headset is all you need for voice recgonition.