Nintendo should preemptively attack Microsoft

[Squilliam]

WereKitten said:

Squilliam said:

I've seen it somewhere but I didn't have the foresight to bookmark it. I've been following the Beyond3d thread on this topic and it came out there but as im currently suffering from a sinus infection I don't have the inclination to look it up.

Im not sure what you mean about wide and tested patents. I know the 3DV system was prototyped and they had several working demonstrations if thats what you mean?

Scottie: Iwata has stated that when prototyping the Wii, they considered camera based motion sensing (including 3d cameras) but decided against it. This is not something you can debate - Iwata said it. You can call him a liar if you so desire.

Its not mutally exclusive that Iwata and Microsoft would come away with differing impressions of the relevant technologies and therefore opinions of their relative worth respective and cost/benefit ratios.

Regarding Sony and Nintendo, the point is that both of them stated that they tried out several types of 3d cameras, while 3dv's one was tof only. Here's one link about a Sony developer, but the same is true for Iwata's statements:

When asked about investing research into 3D cameras like Natal’s, Marks explained: We tried a lot of different 3D cameras. I love the 3D camera technology; personally, I like the technology part of it...

I can't see anything in there to substantiate your claim that Sony and/or Nintendo only tested 3dv tech specifically. The primesense hardware is nice because it offers good enough specs and an unexpensive all in one solution, but other depth cameras have been available for research laboratories for years, and it only makes sense that both Sony and Nintendo tested both equivalently or higher specced but more expensive solutions, and entry level commercial ones such as 3dv's as well.

As for the patents: if as you say MS didn't buy 3dv for its software or hardware tech specific implementation and are not using their intellectual property because they developed everything in their own R&D, then it must be because of their patent portfolio. And it must be a hell of a patent portfolio of very wide patents if it covers motion interfaces spanning multiple sensor technologies. I'm asking support for this claim, because I see it as much more likely that MS acquired some useful tech from 3dv, even if they are using primesense's sensors and chips.

In other words, while I believe that MS had R&D in face tracking, gesture interfaces and voice recognition -just as Sony, Google, Apple and many others- I don't believe that Natal's implementation will not contain substantial pieces of acquired software technology.

 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-primesense-article

"PrimeSense isn't just the provider of the 3D technology in Project Natal... it's the sole provider," says Maizels proudly. "Project Natal is much more than a 3D sensing device, but PrimeSense is the only company responsible for the 3D."

"To make it crystal clear, in the beginning there was 3D acquisition. We want to take some pride for ourselves, this is the part that PrimeSense developed and in Natal, this is PrimeSense: no others,"

"But Natal is much more than that. Natal is content. Natal is processing software. Natal is about other ways of interaction like voice and so on. Microsoft was able to put this vast and expensive eco-system around it to make turn a raw technology into a product. Natal is far, far wider than the PrimeSense element, but PrimeSense is the acquisition element."

"PrimeSense is using proprietary technology that we call Light Coding. It's proprietary. No other company in the world uses that," Adi Berenson says proudly.

Now as per the statement made by the Sony exec:

He didn't mention Primesense because dropping two names is too much content? Doubtful.

He didn't mention Primesense because he was ignorant? Doubtful as he would have been aware of the Primesense aquisition for months.

He didn't mention Primesense because he was either talking FUD or never dealt with Primesense? Much more plausible.

Feel free to come up with a better explanation if you wish.

The article explains most of everything else you raised.

As for Nintendo I cannot say specifically as I can't recall exactly what they said. However I did say previously that they don't have the resources to develop a similar device to Natal as Microsoft leveraged already existing and ongoing R+D whereas Nintendo would have had to aquire the technology from third parties and their console was not powerful enough to fully utilise the camera as in the Natal implementation and it would have been too expensive otherwise.

BDBDBD

@Squill: It's not just about M$. The patent infridgement suits can prevent the sales of everything that utilises the said technology, so there are third party publishers involved aswell. If they would get sued, all the third parties would either can or put their Natal projects on hold until the case was settled. If they would go into court, it would take years.

Good point. That also makes a lot of sense, however see the digital foundry article if you want further details.