By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
theprof00 on 14 November 2009
Edit Thread
Porcupine_I said:
theprof00 said:
Porcupine_I said:
theprof00 said:
the mistake you made with the title was saying motion control.
To any member here, that would be referring to the sony wandballs or whatever you want to call them.
This should be titled, "why the pseye is problematic".
Whereas everyone would come in here and say "thanks genius"

..actually i thought this was about natal, as it said "camera based motion control"

 

:D

they're two completely different technologies.

i know they are different technologies, but that is irrelevant, natal is still a "camera based motion control"

 

but you said the title was misleading, and everyone would think it is about sonys wand

 

and  tried to state that the term "camera based motion control" for me refers to natal rather then sonys wand.

 

I do very much agree that it sounds like Natal more than sony torch. To me, because of the nature of the torch being so different than camera based control, it has to mean Natal. Trying to compare Eyepet to the wand is just plain silly.

I'm sure you understand how Natal works, so I won't belabor the point, but Natal uses IR and PSEye is a camera. While similar, one works on IR spectrum of light, and one works on visible light.

Either way the article and the OP have a very forward-thinking approach to this game. It's plainly obvious that the pseye has problems. It's been that way since the beginning, and is exactly why it hasn't been the must-have device that it could be. Instead, the article has the idea that this tech "isn't ready to move past 'tech-demo'". This phrase, along with others, is an interesting choice of words that implies that the failure of eyepet is the failure of sony torch/natal.

So, while the title and OP are correct in saying that this is a failure of motion based camera, it is not a failure of sony/ms new motion control technologies coming out in 2010.