PS3 controller is titled Move, says source


Recommended Posts

too late, that's already done and ready to go. Played it, quite fun but not gonna cause me to go buy it. In the video posted above, it's where the little girl is "painting". As far as Move Fit, I wouldn't be suprised to see them bring back Kinetic from the PS2 days, way before Wii Fit, since it used the Eye Toy as well.

Move Dance would be awesome if you could use the 3iimotes as glowsticks.

Wow, that game actually looks really good:

I don't think the Move in any way compares with Microsoft's Natal project.....I am a huge fan of the PS3 as I have one and not a 360 but I have to say, for Sony to even dream of comparing their Move thing to Natal is just arrogant and silly. Move is more or less what Wii has but Natal has actual visual detection and does not require any sort of controller. I am not saying this is necessarily what people want but the technology is impressive. I doubt the Natal thing will do as well as Microsoft hopes because honestly, do you really want to be holding an imaginary steering wheel while playing a racing game where your hands get damn tired and start aching? Do you really want to move around like a play puppet and sweat like a pig when trying to play your favorite sports game? I think Microsoft is trying to place you into the experience by getting you to physically move about and such. I doubt gamers want to sweat and get tired when playing video games. I mean when you want to exercise and have fun physically, you go outside and play a sport but when wanting to play video games in a nice air-conditioned room, I don't think people want to do much physical activity. So I think Sony's Move will be far more successful even though the technology is not as impressive.

How do you work that out? Buy both parts, pay as much as you do for 1 PS3 controller. How does N make more money by breaking up a set of controllers? :unsure:

Not true. A DUALSHOCK 3 controller retails for ?39.99. A Wiimote retails for ?29.99, but then if you want to play a game that requires the Nunchuk, you have to pay an extra ?14.99 for that. Then if you want the movements to be precise, you have to spend another ?24.99 on the WiiMotion Plus. That's a total of ?69.97 for one fully complete Wii controller! This is the retail prices, BTW, but if you shopped at say, Play.com, the only saving you'd make would be getting the WiiMotion Plus for ?17.99; the other parts are full price on there.

Nintendo makes more money this way by releasing games that usually require you to have these add-ons (OK, not the WiiMotion Plus at the moment, but definitely the Nunchuk for many games).

Uh, that has got nothing to do with what Nintendo did with motion sensing. That video is of a technology being shown off for a completely different purpose.

It is the same method they are using for PlayStation Move. Just showing that Sony did motion controls first.

http://www.destructoid.com/pax-east-10-what-the-ps-move-does-differently-better-168955.phtml

PAX East 10: What the PS Move does differently, better

It's 3 AM. You wake, sleep broken by the water monster pounding its liquid fists against the sides of your bladder. You pull off the covers and trudge towards the restroom. You know where the toilet is. You know your hallway. But you still stub your toe and fumble like a drunk for the doorknob. Your ability to perfectly interpret your surroundings is broken by darkness.

This is why software developers, according to Anton Mikhailov, a software engineer in research & development at SCE, program sweeping gestures into their Wii games instead of precise movements. The Wii remote hardware can't interpret space that well.

But the PlayStation Move can.

In Boston this afternoon Mikhailov tossed me a man-versus-darkness analogy to help explain what the PS Move does differently and better than the Wii Motion Plus. According to him, it comes down to a variety of factors: the remote's 1:1 precision, its own accelerometers and gyrometers, and most importantly, the PlayStation Eye camera spatial tracking.

"The way the system works -- the lit sphere is being tracked by the PlayStation Eye camera. Internally, there are accelerometers and gyroscopes. That part is very similar to the Wii Motion Plus. But the camera is the big differentiating factor because that actually lets you have a position in space.

"On the Wii Motion Plus you sort of have a gestural input. It sort of knows how you're moving but it doesn't really know where you end up."

Mikhailov and I are standing in front of a decent-sized LCD TV in the middle of a hotel suite in the city tea and the Red Sox built. I'm watching something similar to the E3 tech demo -- Mikhailov is holding two slim PS Move controllers. On the screen, though, he's holding two goofy looking swords.

He's swinging and twisting the controllers quickly, each movement recreated on the screen as close to perfect as my naked eyes can discern. He lets me try. I giggle, feel awkward as I see two the toys transferred to my grip.

"An analogy for that -- [the Wii Motion's general input] -- is if you close your eyes and try to walk across the room. You know you're going forward but you're really not sure where you are in space. You're kind of stumbling.

"That's why they end up doing a lot of gestures where you swing forward and swing left. We're more of a spatial device. We can do quick gestures. But at the same time, we also have the smooth positionings. So we can do another level of gameplay where you can fake left and then go under and low. You can do complex motions that don't just trigger gestural inputs, but move how you move."

The Eye does all the depth tracking based on its view of the controller.

"The camera does 3D tracking. The Wii has a camera looking at the dots. But the reason it can't do 3D is because, as [people] turn away, [the hardware] loses sight of the dots -- and the dots move around in unpredictable ways.

"Because our camera is looking at the controller, going back to the blind analogy, it's like those are our eyes that are watching the room for us. That's how we can tell position."

He switches the swords to models of a PS Move motion controller. The device is perfectly rendered to the controller we're holding in our hands, right down to the buttons as I move the controller around to face the PS Eye.

"This is the shape of the controller, overlayed on the video. You can actually see how precise this device is. If there was any error, you wouldn't see the controller where it's supposed to be. It's exactly where we are."

The sub-controller, an optional attachment, can't be tracked like this -- It's because it doesn't have a glowing sphere. As dorky as that thing looks, it's vital to the experience. To illustrate, Mikhailov places a free hand over the ball. The hardware loses sight of the controller, and as his hands move, the 1:1 recreation of the remote on-screen hovers feet from the device and can only snake towards the movement.

"That's why on the Wii, you kind of get some spatial stuff, but it doesn't always work and it's not always reliable."

What's the skinny on PS Move versus Microsoft's Project Natal? Mikhailov boots up the "puppet" demo. The video feed turns him into a wireframe monster with long and slim fingers and a funny shaped, featureless face. The monster moves as he does, recreating his head and hand movement.

"This is tracking your head and your hands. Natal is tracking your full body, so its doing the legs too. When we did Eye Toy, we found that actually these are the most important parts because they define your body. Most of the time people aren't doing kicks. It's more important to know precisely where your hand is rather than roughly know where your body is.

"I have these fine finger controls. I can squeeze the trigger. With Natal what you get is more like position. You don't actually get angles of your arms very well. We think that's more important. We're tracking less, but I think we're tracking in a more comprehensive way."

Mikhailov appears to be on the money with all his points -- Move is a sharp collection of hardware that recreates movement with sometimes-unnerving near-perfect precision. The Wii and Project Natal are missing that boat.

But I still have questions. Will the Move end up trumping either of these two motion technologies? (Nintendo has had a hell of a headstart.) Will software creators actually harness the hardware or create interesting or compelling games that have us exploring what Move does? We'll have to wait a long time for those answers.

LOL at their dig of NATAL. The funny thing is, they have never used NATAL. NATAL is easily going to best the Move dildo.

How do you know they have never used Natal?

You realise that it has been used outside of MS Development labs?

I'm not saying that I know they have used it, but to claim they haven't without proof is just silly.

How do you know they have never used Natal?

Because Natal isn't even done yet. Besides an old build that isn't ready, how could they? I am guess the guy doesn't also work for Microsoft.

i dont know if you meant it or not, but you have stated your opinion like you have stated a fact... and that is a very common form of flamebait

I always state opinions. I never state facts unless I back them up with links. How can it NOT be an opinion. It's a subjective comment.

That last thing we want on this forum is childish flamebait. Been here too long to see all that crap come and go too.

LOL at their dig of NATAL. The funny thing is, they have never used NATAL. NATAL is easily going to best the Move dildo.

You realize that Sony has already done the whole motion thing with a camera and it was never anything what Natal promises. Not to mention the fact the voice recognition will be an epic fail. It barely works now - how are people with an accent suppose to use this?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!