Watch and be amazed.

POV = Point of View

Hence, for the "3d head tracking effect" to work, it requires no more processing power than it takes to move the camera in a game already.

Wii- A shooting game on the Wii would be good. Hiding behind rocks, quickly popping your head out and shooting with the Wii remote.

Head tracking would also be much more effective in games like the Wii Sports boxing dodgeball.


PS3- Making headtracking games with the PS3 Eye probably works better than having to hold the Sensor Bar. However, a controller instead of a wii remote will probably prove to be much more difficult to develop.

My first idea for the kind of thing PS3 could use it for would be for looking around a corner in MGS by tilting your head.


X360- I havn't seen X360 come up with a way to make this possible. But it they do, it will probably be hard to develop a control system for like the PS3.

@ Stever89
You have some confusion over the relative power of various consoles that seems to stem from a comparison of CPU clock-speeds. The N64 had a CPU clocked at 3x that of the PS1, but to say it was 3x as powerful is misleading. Likewise, the Xbox CPU was clocked at 3x the speed of the PS2 (and the GC 2x) but can only really claim to
Of course, your conclusion that the wii is easily powerful enough to do head-tracking is correct, as it is not a processor-intensive task.

I did say that these weren't simply the only thing that makes the specs. And since I don't know the site that I read the thing about the cores, nor can I really say how accurate that site is, I won't try to argue about one core beating the Wiis CPU. I probably stated what I was trying to say wrong in any case. I can't comment on the architecture of the PS3, 360, or the Wii, so I can't say if any one is any better than the other or previous consoles, but you say that the PS3/360 are 5x more powerful than the Wii when only looking at those specs, but the N64 wasn't 3x as powerful as the PS, we just cannot say. In any case, I really wasn't trying to prove that the Wii was in any way better performance wise than the PS3/360, and it's not really worth arguing/discussing. It was really late when I wrote that and I was trying to think while also celebrating the Pats demise in the SB, and when I read that the Wii might not be able to handle it, and maybe only a Wii2 would be able to do such a thing, I just tried to prove how the Wii, though not as powerful as the other two current gen consoles, isn't something that should just be ignored because it can't produce HD graphics.

Hey you two, Nintendo has said ZERO about Wii's architecture, and you are going off topic. And Stever89, the 360 can use the 512MB of main RAM as video RAM. It's an unified memory architecture. Probably same as the Wii (read PROBABLY). And the talk is irrelevant to the topic anyway, as this "feature" doesn't needs any extra power, it just needs to move the camera around. It's like saying that the Wii doesn't has a Z-Buffer.

On-topic: I say Wii. You need nothing else, and if they want to add a specific IR-LED equipped glasses, they should be inexpensive. An IR LED is just a cents worth.

most likely sony... nintendo would wait till they find a truly compelling reason to use head tracking, which would be forever. sony tend to push these kind of technology faster out the door.

so i would be really surprised if nintendo does this first. they do have a greater commercial stake in making a game like this though, more so than sony, since the wiimote is a pack-in and everybody has it.

and please, it has nothing to do with graphics.

I stated that. And that's true. Unified archs. are easier to use for the most part because you can move RAM to where you need it.

Sorry to get it off topic.

I would think Nintendo would be the first to do something like this, though in all reality, as cool as headtracking is, it has limited usage for the most part. How many people are gonna want/be able to move around an entire room just to play a game? The shooting and ducking sounds cool, and it works relatively well in Lee's video, but... that's about it. Anything that requires you to move more than a foot or so from where you started wouldn't work, because you might hit a wall or something. I know in my dorm room I wouldn't be able to play something that required me to move too much.

I would say Nintendo again because this would actually work better for those "non-game" type games. Think Endless Ocean type thing. For real games, as cool as it is, I just don't think it could be used too much. It's the same thing with the WiiFit board. But that's another thread. 

 Nintendo has huge balls, they brought the Wii and DS to the market with radical control schemes. Nintendo also has the most expendable income with all the money they have made on their risky investments.

I fully expect Nintendo to be the first with this technology too, I mean every risk they have taken has turned into a money machine. They're definately more likely to put their money into this. 

Bingo. It's no different than moving the "character's view" in the game. Which is why in most cases it will be a lot faster and easier to move your character's view than your head. In this cases it would be about as useful as using head tracking for a game like Stardust HD.

The reason why it' works so great for flight sims is you can't turn a plane around in a split second like you would in a FPS.

The best idea I can think of for console games is a Mech game ( it moves slow) thus you can view your surrounding. Xbox did have a $150 Mech game with a huge controller so my bet would be Microsoft.