Support NeoGAF

[OldJadedGamer]

If you don't want them limited by tech then you should wish for the PC motion solutions to catch on, not this. This thread is turning into more fanboy wars for no reason....

As a Mac user for over 13 years who only games on consoles... why would I care about this? All this waggle stuff is built for multiple people in front of the TV. Good luck getting mom, grandma, and your uncle at thanksgiving all huddled around your computer monitor ready to play some virtual bowling.

Marketing expense won't be enough. MS and Sony are going to need to pay for the development of prettyprettyprincessstick and Natal games. 3rd parties don't have any inherent need to support these things when what they're doing is either working or failing fine on its own, without the need for mass experimentation. It's going to take money, real money, not just marketing.

3rd parties need to support every new tech that comes out from these companies since they don't know which one will be a success and which will be a failure so it's good to get your foot in the door early just in case. The Wii is a perfect example of this. I'm not saying long term support will be there but if a company is smart, they will have something solid in the first year of release of the system.

That basically is a moneyhat, though. It's just legally sanctioned.

Let's say I want you to provide me a service. I pay you 5 dollars for that service, and you go and spend that on food.

Now let's say, instead, I want you to provide me a service, and I buy you 5 dollars worth of food as a bonus.

What's the difference? You were going to buy food anyway. Similarly, you were going to have to market your game anyway.

(Rant on) I've stated why I deplore this behavior before: because it distorts the market place. Let's be realistic here: Sony and Microsoft are both behaving this way in the hopes of capturing a dominant, monopolistic hold with their "convergence boxes." They want a Windows-esque monopoly where the music, movies, games, and other media which enter your living room first go through them. Does anyone argue with that premise?

Well, if and when one of them actually accomplishes that goal, you can rest assured the money hats will cease. What would be their motivation to continue? Microsoft would treat the console industry just like it now treats the PC gaming industry: it basically ignores it, because what are the developers going to do when there's no viable alternative?

And then publishers will suddenly be faced with a market where their products actually have to be self sustaining. As more of an industry observer than actual purveyor, I really deplore this practice. It provides short term gain at the cost of the long term health of the market.

/rant off

Excellent post and you are right.

 

[Johann]

Gimmick controls my ass, pointer control for shooters is awesome. Seriously, why do people have to troll the best thing about motion controls :-/

Well, they are bad motion controls. Resident Evil 4 had terrible motion controls. They were poorly implemented and unintuitive. The only thing going for it were the pointer controls and the new knife functionality. Who knows, Resident Evil 5 might have you punch enemies by swinging the wand. And probably you can't half-ass it or it won't register. Or better yet, during local co-op, you have to swing in the direction of your co-op partner in order to free their character from enemies. Doesn't that sound fun and immersive to you? I can just totally relate Chris's emotional and physical plight of punching boulders!

If you just want pixel perfect precision, play the PC version or lobby for keyboard/mouse compatibility with games. It seems much better and much less jittery the Alternative Edition so far. I really don't get the sudden interest in better, more precise controls in shooters and action games. I tell people that the PC has better controls than the consoles for a multi-platform game but they tell me that it's too expensive. And now they're willing to pay for better controls and multiple controllers for a limited selection of games?

Something tells me this is going to be a repeat of the general situation this gen - they'll sell less but will have far more developer support than M+.

At least looking at M+ now. Support for that has been amazingly slow in forthcoming for some reason.

Well, that's assuming third-party publishers seriosuly want to develop for motion controls. The message I'm getting from developers is "Maybe if we throw those damn casuals a bone once in awhile these goddamn motion controls will go away." They hate motion controls. They don't like re-thinking 20 years of game design/marketing and, more importantly, they don't the asymmetries introduced with these new control methods. The big push for multi-platform development is caused by high development costs. You can justify the development costs by hitting a large userbase by cross-platform development. We're seeing many major franchises, such as Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, become multi-platform releases for the first time. With these new motion controls, you're not only developing for a tiny userbase but also removing easy porting. There is no easy way to port between the Wand and Natal. There is possibly some compatibility with the Wii-mote and the Wand but someone will have to pioneer it and there are already a lot of issues with this relationship.

Publishers want to make as much easy money as possible while remaining conservative with how they run their businesses. There is a Sixaxis controller with every PS3 but you don't see multi-platform games make use of it. Why spend good money on unorthodox control method when you can't reuse that for the 360 version and PS3 owners will buy it anyway? Third-parties alienated by motion controls since they it throws a wrench in how they run their business. They'll have to spend understanding, developing, and marketing a control method that doesn't have a guaranteed return on investment. If they're going to make ground-up motion control game with no easy backdoor porting, then the Wii makes the most financial sense. All of these control methods share the same stigma. The Wii won't be the odd man out. In fact, it's going to have the highest userbase with possibly lower development costs. Motion+ and the balance board will have higher penetration than Natal and the Wand combined.

We'll likely see third parties ignore them, put out some good sports/fitness games, or accept Sony/Microsoft marketing/development moneyhat incentives by putting out half-assed ports. Motion controls aren't a way for third-parties to push the boundaries of what it possible in gaming. It's a way for them to make a quick buck, add another marketing bullet point on the front of the box, and get back to spending real actual effort on games with traditional controls. They're not going to spend good money and manpower on motion controls when they could spend it on developing for the PC/PS3/360 userbase with familiar traditional controls.

 

[Jtrizzy]

I'm excited by the possibility of a game with 3D and Motion controls. That could be awesome.

 

[spwolf]

I'm excited by the possibility of a game with 3D and Motion controls. That could be awesome.

i dont see how 3D and Wand relate to each other?

 

[gofreak]

That basically is a moneyhat, though. It's just legally sanctioned.

Well, there's nothing illegal about any moneyhat :lol They can of course pay directly for games if they want - that's a development contract, really.

And I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying - money is money is money.

I think, though, you kind of put too much weight on these things when you start talking about market distortion. In most cases the amounts involved are drops in the ocean next to the revenue a game will generate or even the amount the publisher will pay back in royalties to the platform holder. In many cases these things are like discounts-in-kind on licensing fees, without the need to renegotiate licensing contracts, or without attracting eyebrow raises from other publishers. It's not like, either, the games would suddenly become un-self-sustaining, or uneconomic without them. I mean if Sony chumps up $2m in marketing for, say, Assassin's Creed II...that's a tiny amount next to the amount that game will generate, but it's a saving the company otherwise wouldn't have, so it helps keep them sweet. But typically, these things don't make the uneconomic, economic. If it was about that, they wouldn't be throwing money at sure bet big games...which is what they typically do (look at the games Sony and MS target for this treatment). They're just about supporting an incentivising support and preferential platform treatment and 'being a good partner'.

i dont see how 3D and Wand relate to each other?

Remember the E3 demo with the layers of blocks and stuff going where you can reach in to pull things out etc onto another plane? 3D could mesh nicely with stuff like that in terms of the sense of reaching into scenes that appear to have depth etc. and helping the user discern where exactly they are pointing. 3D pointing on a 2D screen is nice. 3D pointing on a 3D screen could be really nice. It's an immersion thing I suppose...things like the wand and so on are meant to heighten our immersion in interacting in a more tactile/physical way with things on the screen, so an accompanying boost to the immersion of your display could make for a neat combination.

 

[Jtrizzy]

i dont see how 3D and Wand relate to each other?

A game that uses both simultaneously. Seems like they could go well together. Hopefully someone comes up with something really innovative that uses both is all I'm saying.

 

[Agnates]

As a Mac user for over 13 years who only games on consoles... why would I care about this? All this waggle stuff is built for multiple people in front of the TV. Good luck getting mom, grandma, and your uncle at thanksgiving all huddled around your computer monitor ready to play some virtual bowling.

Then you don't care they're limited by tech so don't pretend you do just to bash the Wii. And lol @ implying you want your grandpa to have a better bowling experience Wii Sports/Resort don't provide and that's the reason you want this more than Motion plus... Like MS/Sony will have to moneyhat for bowling games :lol

Meh. I'm out, this thread's going places. People even bash RE4 Wii controls, lol. Knife, good, shooting, good, what was bad then? The QTEs? Well, sorry the game's design was flawed in the first place before having motion controls added, Wand or Gem or Arc won't make shitty QTEs good either.

 

[riceandbeans]

Sony made the right move by moving up the release date. Direct competition is always good.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

The motion control wars are even less interesting than the Battle of the DrabRacer.

 

[gamergirly]

That basically is a moneyhat, though. It's just legally sanctioned.

Let's say I want you to provide me a service. I pay you 5 dollars for that service, and you go and spend that on food.

Now let's say, instead, I want you to provide me a service, and I buy you 5 dollars worth of food as a bonus.

What's the difference? You were going to buy food anyway. Similarly, you were going to have to market your game anyway.

(Rant on) I've stated why I deplore this behavior before: because it distorts the market place. Let's be realistic here: Sony and Microsoft are both behaving this way in the hopes of capturing a dominant, monopolistic hold with their "convergence boxes." They want a Windows-esque monopoly where the music, movies, games, and other media which enter your living room first go through them. Does anyone argue with that premise?

Well, if and when one of them actually accomplishes that goal, you can rest assured the money hats will cease. What would be their motivation to continue? Microsoft would treat the console industry just like it now treats the PC gaming industry: it basically ignores it, because what are the developers going to do when there's no viable alternative?

And then publishers will suddenly be faced with a market where their products actually have to be self sustaining. As more of an industry observer than actual purveyor, I really deplore this practice. It provides short term gain at the cost of the long term health of the market.

/rant off

That's why no company should "win". When I mean win, I'm not referring to 1st place. What I'm referring to is that stupid idea of a "one console future".

Could you imagine playing nothing but Super Mario and The Legend of Zelda the rest of your life and ABSOLUTELY nothing else? No rpgs? No action games? No adventure titles? No RTS like Command & Conquer? No simulation games like The Sims? Nothing?

Or playing Halo and nothing else? No platformers? No action games? No adventure titles? No RTS? No strategies? No rpgs?

Or playing GT and MGS and nothing else? Etc and etc

I love Nintendo but that's a hard sell. Especially with 50+ years of your life left :lol

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Then you don't care they're limited by tech so don't pretend you do just to bash the Wii. And lol @ implying you want your grandpa to have a better bowling experience Wii Sports/Resort don't provide and that's the reason you want this more than Motion plus... Like MS/Sony will have to moneyhat for bowling games :lol

There is your problem. You feel I'm bashing the Wii when I'm not. Third parties are limited by tech in the system. That's not some trolling comment but the truth that developers have said. Who knows what games can be made when companies aren't limited anymore. I feel Nintendo did a great job sending out the invitations to the party but Sony and MS are bringing the kegs and the ladies.

 

[just tray]

stupid move. sony is bringing a knife to a gun fight. maybe they were just trying to bait Microsoft into releasing Natal early.

 

[Son of Godzilla]

So Valve made L4D for microsoft, and a clock for Sony.

 

[gofreak]

stupid move. sony is bringing a knife to a gun fight. maybe they were just trying to bait Microsoft into releasing Natal early.

If you mean technologically...Natal has at least as many shortcomings vs Wand as vice versa. At least.

If you mean marketing wise and so on...dunno, I wouldn't be surprised if you're right though :lol

 

[MattyGrovesOrMe]

stupid move. sony is bringing a knife to a gun fight. maybe they were just trying to bait Microsoft into releasing Natal early.

I'd like to think of it as Sony bringing a wand to an interpretive dance competition.

 

[Opiate]

Well, there's nothing illegal about any moneyhat :lol

It depends on your location, of course, but it is absolutely illegal to "moneyhat" in many situations and locations. You live in the UK, correct? Well, the EU handed out the largest fine in history just last year to Intel for paying "partners" to work with them exclusively.

If you'd like to call that "being a good partner," that's fine, but I call it anti-competitive behavior. Again, I'm not suggesting that Microsoft and Sony have actually stepped over that line here: I think their consistent use of "advertising comarketing" instead of direct cash infusions helps, in addition to sticking with individual games instead of full companies (e.g. the difference between SO4 "comarketing" on the 360 and paying Square huge sums of cash to make every single one of their games exclusive to the 360). So while I don't think they've stepped over the line, I am suggesting that they're deliberately flirting with that it.

I think, though, you kind of put too much weight on these things when you start talking about market distortion. In most cases the amounts involved are drops in the ocean next to the revenue a game will generate or even the amount the publisher will pay back in royalties to the platform holder. In many cases these things are like discounts-in-kind on licensing fees, without the need to renegotiate licensing contracts, or without attracting eyebrow raises from other publishers. It's not like, either, the games would suddenly become un-self-sustaining, or uneconomic without them. I mean if Sony chumps up $2m in marketing for, say, Assassin's Creed II...that's a tiny amount next to the amount that game will generate, but it's a saving the company otherwise wouldn't have, so it helps keep them sweet. But typically, these things don't make the uneconomic, economic. If it was about that, they wouldn't be throwing money at sure bet big games...which is what they typically do (look at the games Sony and MS target for this treatment). They're just about supporting an incentivising support and preferential platform treatment and 'being a good partner.

I don't really know the scope of the sorts of deals Microsoft and Sony make. If it's just one or two deals, I agree, the effect is so negligible that we're better of worrying about other things. But given how disproportionately these major companies have favored the 360, PSP, and PS3 when those systems have the lowest install bases of any active systems available (iPhone, DS, Wii, PSP, PS3, 360), I'm not convinced that there hasn't been a great deal of money thrown around.

That hypothesis could absolutely be wrong. My objection is as much one of principle as it is one of practical effect.

 

[Opiate]

Just as an addendum, I am not suggesting in the slightest that Nintendo is the champion of the people. They've also been fined for price fixing (1991-1998), and many of their choices, such as region locking, represent blatantly anti-consumer behavior.

No company is absolutely good or bad. Microsoft -- and Bill Gates -- have done a lot of great things for many people. Microsoft is consistently listed as one of the best places to work, and Bill Gates has given more money to charity than any man in the world not named Warren Buffet.

I just don't happen to like this particular behavior. Just like I wish my girlfriend, who I love devoutly, would stop snoring.

 

[gofreak]

It depends on your location, of course, but it is absolutely illegal to "moneyhat" in many situations and locations. You live in the UK, correct? Well, the EU handed out the largest fine in history just last year to Intel for paying "partners" to work with them exclusively.

If you'd like to call that "being a good partner," that's fine, but I call it anti-competitive behavior. Again, I'm not suggesting that Microsoft and Sony have actually stepped over the line here: I think their consistent use of "advertising comarketing" instead of direct cash infusions helps, in addition to sticking with individual games instead of full companies (e.g. the difference between SO4 "comarketing" on the 360 and paying Square huge sums of cash to make every single one of their games exclusive to the 360). I am suggesting, however, that they're deliberately flirting with that line.

Well I live in Ireland, but EU law would be the same here of course.

Sorry I don't have time to read into this more but...jeez...what's the line Intel apparently crossed here?

You can't contract companies to work exclusively with you? Or does it depend on who these companies are?

fake edit - read some of the article...come back to this down below...

I don't really know the scope of the sorts of deals Microsoft and Sony make. If it's just one or two deals, I agree, the effect is so negligible that we're better of worrying about other things. But given how disproportionately these major companies have favored the 360, PSP, and PS3 when those systems have the lowest install bases of any active systems available (iPhone, DS, Wii, PSP, PS3, 360)

They don't really though. From a development point of view you can pretty much lump PS3/360/PC together which leads to a pretty substantial number of people, and the potential for pretty substantial game sales. There's other factors at play too - there's an interview with the head of EA publishing in Europe for example, and he talks about how on Nintendo platforms, Nintendo can have up to a 40, 50, maybe 60% market share in some countries on their platforms. On the 360 and PS3, the platform holders share is maybe 15-20%. So they feel there's more room for third parties on those platforms (a view that seems to be shared fairly broadly among pubs). And then there's the whole 'competency' and ambition angle on things, where some (many?) of the better developers probably don't want to work with Wii if they can avoid it because they want to making technically high end games - though publishers are in control here, that probably does have some small input into things.

Basically, I think the dev split we have is a result of a lot more factors than any 'supports' MS or Sony are providing. And I do think they're probably quite limited in the number of titles involved - I think it's really only in the games where it's obvious, where there's a marketing campaign for one platform only or where there is DLC or a timed exclusive release or whatever. And when you look at it, the number of games that have those things is very small relatively. Further, the impact of these things is sort of diminishing IMO - for example it's much rarer now to see any third party or timed exclusives at all, so I think the 'harm' has also reduced some.

I think this is also maybe where videogames diverge from the case of Intel above too...I mean if Intel was going around paying off large swathes of the manufacturer and retailer companies to support them exclusively or preferentially, that can obviously have a very damaging impact on competitiveness. But if you're in a situation where it's not so widespread, and all companies are engaging in it - and the one who isn't is enjoy huge competitive success - it's probably hard to make a case that it's anti-competitive. If anything it may be a sign of a very competitive market in that context. So I think it depends on the industry. If you eventually got to a point where one company was dominating and monopolising the market and was using tactics like this to suppress competition, and it was being effective in doing so, then you may have a case similar to the Intel one...but we're far from that with videogames.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

stupid move. sony is bringing a knife to a gun fight. maybe they were just trying to bait Microsoft into releasing Natal early.

Well, Japanese are famous ninjaz.

A knife is all they need.

 

[Opiate]

I think this is also maybe where videogames diverge from the case of Intel above too...I mean if Intel was going around paying off large swathes of the manufacturer and retailer companies to support them exclusively or preferentially, that can obviously have a very damaging impact on competitiveness. But if you're in a situation where it's not so widespread, and all companies are engaging in it - and the one who isn't is enjoy huge competitive success - it's probably hard to make a case that it's anti-competitive. If anything it may be a sign of a very competitive market in that context. So I think it depends on the industry. If you eventually got to a point where one company was dominating and monopolising the market and was using tactics like this to suppress competition, then you may have a case similar to the Intel one...but we're far from that with videogames.

Part of what makes this case so complex is that while neither Sony nor Microsoft have commanding marketshare in this particular market, they do have enormous resources at their disposal which they have acquired from other markets. In other words, neither Sony nor Microsoft would even be capable of moneyhatting if they didn't have external resources provided by their other market segments. In fact, one or both of them would likely have been Sega'd by now if they didn't have those external resources.

In other words, the very fact that it's a "competitive market" when the actual financial results are so widely disparate, is in itself proof that it isn't a balanced marketplace. It would be like a fight between a professional fighter and an unskilled opponent who happened to have a sword. That might create a "competitive fight," but it's not because the rules are actually fair.

Back to the original point, I'm not suggesting that the Intel case is exactly analogous. Instead, I am making it clear that directly "moneyhatting" for preferential or exclusive treatment can be quite illegal.

 

[danielijohnson]

In other news Conan is losing the tonight show.

Is anyone surprised by this? I would speculate that Sony 'confirmed" a spring release for their product to try to force Microsoft's hand and make them launch Natal before it was ready.

It came out with a pc on a cart. Anyone who thought this would launch so far in advance of Natal was crazy.

 

[Chrange]

I'd like to think of it as Sony bringing a wand to an interpretive dance competition.

If they tie a ribbon to that, they'll have something!

 

[Afrikan]

i dont see how 3D and Wand relate to each other?

1st person batting mode in MLB THE SHOW's Home Run Derby mode...

and regular gameplay as well if you are up to it....

3D scenario here....facing Justin Verlander.... 100mph fast ball screaming to your head...would you duck?

 

[backbreaker65]

1st person batting mode in MLB THE SHOW's Home Run Derby mode...

and regular gameplay as well if you are up to it....

3D scenario here....facing Justin Verlander.... 100mph fast ball screaming to your head...would you duck?

Now that their I would spend 699 dollars on, and it will also work wonders with a golf game.

 

[gerg]

Just as an addendum, I am not suggesting in the slightest that Nintendo is the champion of the people. They've also been fined for price fixing (1991-1998), and many of their choices, such as region locking, represent blatantly anti-consumer behavior.

Not to take this thread wildly off topic, but I've always found this position unsustainable. It seems to me that, in order for "anti-consumer" to represent anything more meaningful than "a decision which the consumer dislikes", the word "anti-consumer" must describe an action which is either anti-competitive or violates the rights that we donate to the consumer. The onus is then on proving how playing a game from any region on their system is a right the consumer must have.

This is not to suggest that these moves are good for the consumer, but that I think that the counterpart to "pro-consumer" is not necessarily "anti-consumer" but "pro-corporation".

 

[elohel]

why does sony always do this? lol they announce like, almost nothing , no name, no solid line up for some date they know and we know they can't hit

then they delay it as if anyone really was expecting it, were people really expecting motion games to be ready by now? even a port would take more time than they gave themselves no?

just seems to conflict with their new image of "hey guys, we get it, we're a little more laid back now, check out our new commercials" which is great n all but.......then they go and do this, jump on the bandwagon and do so late

they really....should just not....do it, i really dont want motion games, i dunno how many other people do, im probably wrong but, im fine with just waiting for regular games to come out

they've been building up so much momentum lately all the great games have been coming out more frequently like...just seems counter productive to pit this thing in the middle of all that

hope that's not too pissy but, just....typical sony image was going up and this kinda puts it back down a scoach

 

[Drinking Hatorade]

I will never understand the amount of hate people have for motion controls. We can only benefit from it's success. We would get new gameplay that will compliment controller gaming.

I think everyone is so worried about a potential shovelware overload but not every consoles would survive on strictly minigames. The industry would fail hard if they couldnt produce great motion based games that even the haters can't resist.

Microsoft and Sony know they need awesome software because Nintendo already took the casual market. Casual gamers won't buy another motion controlled console anytime soon, so guess who Microsoft and Sony need to target? The haters. The people who need a substantial experience. Believe me, Microsoft and Sony know this.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

Overall this news was extremely predictable so I don't think it warrants any sort of reaction other then Fall should be an interesting time.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

*Sticks head in again*

Vinci's got this pretty much handled. I'm gone.

 

[Kilrogg]

Well, that's assuming third-party publishers seriosuly want to develop for motion controls. The message I'm getting from developers is "Maybe if we throw those damn casuals a bone once in awhile these goddamn motion controls will go away." They hate motion controls. They don't like re-thinking 20 years of game design/marketing and, more importantly, they don't the asymmetries introduced with these new control methods. The big push for multi-platform development is caused by high development costs. You can justify the development costs by hitting a large userbase by cross-platform development. We're seeing many major franchises, such as Final Fantasy and Metal Gear, become multi-platform releases for the first time. With these new motion controls, you're not only developing for a tiny userbase but also removing easy porting. There is no easy way to port between the Wand and Natal. There is possibly some compatibility with the Wii-mote and the Wand but someone will have to pioneer it and there are already a lot of issues with this relationship.

Publishers want to make as much easy money as possible while remaining conservative with how they run their businesses. There is a Sixaxis controller with every PS3 but you don't see multi-platform games make use of it. Why spend good money on unorthodox control method when you can't reuse that for the 360 version and PS3 owners will buy it anyway? Third-parties alienated by motion controls since they it throws a wrench in how they run their business. They'll have to spend understanding, developing, and marketing a control method that doesn't have a guaranteed return on investment. If they're going to make ground-up motion control game with no easy backdoor porting, then the Wii makes the most financial sense. All of these control methods share the same stigma. The Wii won't be the odd man out. In fact, it's going to have the highest userbase with possibly lower development costs. Motion+ and the balance board will have higher penetration than Natal and the Wand combined.

We'll likely see third parties ignore them, put out some good sports/fitness games, or accept Sony/Microsoft marketing/development moneyhat incentives by putting out half-assed ports. Motion controls aren't a way for third-parties to push the boundaries of what it possible in gaming. It's a way for them to make a quick buck, add another marketing bullet point on the front of the box, and get back to spending real actual effort on games with traditional controls. They're not going to spend good money and manpower on motion controls when they could spend it on developing for the PC/PS3/360 userbase with familiar traditional controls.

You make good points as always, especially when taken separately, but for some reason, just this once, there is something that I can't exactly pinpoint which makes it harder than usual for me to wholeheartedly agree with you and be confident that 3rd parties won't really support those new peripherals. I'm really sorry, I can't be more specific. Maybe it's in the wording? The transitions?

Spoiler

Also, yes, I know, I still have to reply to your PM. Sorry about that. I'll reply as soon as I'm done with my exams. Promise.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Can there be any more xenophobic behavior exhibited from gamers than what is unleashed from the supposed threat of motion controls? Judging from comments in this and other motion-control threads, I'd guess not. This stuff is additive, guys. It's not a replacement for traditional controller-based and controller feature-informed designs that work best on your average dual-analog stick pad. Wanting this stuff to fail is really pointless since it's a foregone conclusion that, with the success of the Wii (and other gesture-based input platforms, like iPhone and multi-touch laptops and mobiles) and its currently rudimentary motion control, all future consoles will feature this range of input from their very inception as an out-of-the-box feature. There's nothing wrong with exploring this stuff on current consoles since MS and Sony have to acknowledge Ninty's success and how the masses have voted this stuff in and because there's no real telling when the next-gen will hit due to the current and foreseeable situation for sales.

As for this official news, I don't think it's a bad thing to be delayed to launch in better shape, but I don't think it's good for Sony's controller to start off heading against the wind of Natal and how much MS is pouring into it this year. If Sony grabs some of the most popular Wii third party releases at the same time and has enough on its own to push the controller, it could do pretty decently. Otherwise, it's going to come across as too derivative. Obviously, it's gonna be all about the marketing effort, software, and price that dictate how strong the start is for it.

 

[boiled goose]

As a Mac user for over 13 years who only games on consoles... why would I care about this? All this waggle stuff is built for multiple people in front of the TV. Good luck getting mom, grandma, and your uncle at thanksgiving all huddled around your computer monitor ready to play some virtual bowling.

Excellent post and you are right.

I have my gaming rig hooked up to my TV, which is the same display I use for my other consoles. Wireless KB and M and your gamin PC turns into a console. Bar exclusives and maybe cost and portability, the PC is the best and ultimate gaming platform.

 

[soundahfekz]

this is pefect! it will allow them to go head to head, spec vs. spec with Natal and show consumers that their product is the more advanced and game viable platform.

Just a great move by Sony for not allowing Microsoft garner any hype with their release of the 3 webcams in one.

Sony will be riding the wave from all of their tremendous first party games this year, along with the amazing 3D tech, right into the release of their wand... absolutely genius!

You're so obvious it's painful.

 

[RockmanWhore]

If you don't want them limited by tech then you should wish for the PC motion solutions to catch on, not this.

The problem is that motion controls don't make sense on PC. A PC is traditionnaly used on a desk, not on a living room. That's why console have controlers and waggles, and that's why PC games typically work better with mouse and keyboard.

 

[Gravijah]

Maybe Sony realizes this entire venture is going to be a failure, and instead of risking Natal being a success, they plan on confusing consumers with two similar products ensuring they both fail.

 

[boiled goose]

I think the delay is a good idea, both companies need as much hype as they can so post E3 is a good idea.


How compatible do you guys think Natal and Arc will be for multiplatform development?

PS360 has benefited from the fact that developers can develop a game to target both install bases. It makes HD game development a bit more feasible when you ignore the Wii's large install bases.

These devices will not be adopted by all PS360 users. What fraction of the install bases do you think these devices will hit? Being extremely optimistic, 1/3 of each? That puts it around the total of the the Wii fit balance board (20m), yet developers are not aggressively developing games that require the balance board. Most games have some option where they can use the board, but I cant think of a single one other than the wii fits that requires it.

Wii motion plus is probably over 10M WW, yet it is also a case where most games that are compatible with it only include it as an option and not a required component. (the only games that will require it are WSR, Red steel 2, and possibly the new Zelda...)

If WM+ is barely being pushed by developers even when they are already developing with motion controls in mind on the wii, what is their incentive to do so on PS3 and 360?

The only real reason I can think of is that these platforms already have the developer support and thus comparing with the wii is not really valid.

If developers can't develop multiplatform games for these technologies, maybe the incentive for developing motion games for HD platforms will be even less.

(just some random thoughts)