Does Move need the PS EyePet camera?

[Porcupine_I]

Slimebeast said:

justinian said:

It can also do full body mapping but not as effective as kinect....although some ardent supporters would say almost as good as, but I seriously doubt that.

Move is far more than just the wii remote and the PS eye (toy) proceeds both kinect and the wii remote so why not use it?

 

Well that's what I am after. The question is if the camera was mandatory for motion controls to work or if they decided to include a camera just to make it more complex than the Wii mote.

no, they had designed the camera for the get go to be used for for motion controls. that is why they didn't use the old Eyetoy tech, but gave it a complete overhaul, to make the pseye ready to do what it is used for now.

this is from an interview from 2007:

The basic idea for Playstation Eye was to create a device for interactive gaming and enhanced communication. It was designed specifically to be used with PS3.
We learned a lot of things from our experience with EyeToy. The initial design meeting for what would become Playstation Eye was called by Phil Harrison. It included myself and key designers and engineers from the EyeToy game teams of SCEE [Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.] We sought to address some of the issues of EyeToy, but also add some new capabilities as well, keeping in mind all along the PS3 as the intended platform.
For designing the camera portion, there were many, many, agonizing trade-offs. Resolution vs. light sensitivity vs. framerate vs. dynamic range. There are also field of view and bandwidth and compression issues. To guide us through this, we created several usage scenarios and scored the importance of each design criteria for that scenario. For the final design, the interactive gameplay and communication scenarios were weighted as the most important for PS3.
As I mentioned already, our previous experience with EyeToy was invaluable. Low-light performance was viewed as a key issue. Also, we felt a big factor of EyeToy's success was the responsiveness imparted by its 60 frames per second framerate, so we made that a minimum requirement. The compression block artifacts of EyeToy are visually unappealing, and they also limit some of our algorithms, so we pushed for uncompressed video. And finally, the many game ideas put forth by the designers suggested the need for two different fields of view.

http://www.psu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=66891