It will happen first on Nintendo. Implementation would be less costly and more effective. Of course, I doubt it would be done first by Nintendo themselves, but it will happen first on the Wii.

The PS Eye can do it, but when someone else walks into the camera's view, it bungles things up. Devs would have to work on that, and that would make it more difficult. The Wii, no. It'd still be fine.

All the Wii would require is a $5 peripheral to get that running. Meanwhile, the PS Eye costs forty dollars. Which sounds more likely to have a decent adoption rate, based on price?

It'll end up happening on both consoles, most likely, but on Wii first, and it'll be a boxing game rather than a FPS. I think Wii will get a FPS as well before the competition gets their first game out, but I think it'll first be a first- or second-party boxing game.

The 360 also has a camera that's capable of this, too, by the way.

rasone77 said: 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.

Nintendo has tiny balls*. They released a massively underpowered console that made a profit on every unit sold, so they simply could not fail. MS and Sony were/are both selling their hardware at a loss. That is a risk, and therefore requires the "huge balls"** of which you speak.

Nintendo has by far the least amount of disposable income as they are a much smaller company than Sony or MS, who have their other divisions to prop them up during hard times.

Every risk Nintendo have taken has not turned into a money machine. Maybe you are too young to remember their first pitiful attempt at motion controls, the Powerglove, or the folly of the disasterous Virtual Boy. It is the lessons they learned with those products that taught them to stop taking financial risks and only release hardware that could guarantee a profit. They actually looked into the motion sensing devices found in the wiimote many years ago, but decided to wait until the price was affordable enough for a mass market product.

@ fazz
You seem to think that Nintendo's silence regarding the specs of the Wii means that people do not know anything about the internals of the machine. That is simply not the case. The precise details may elude us, but we know for sure that the CPU is a modified PowerPC similar to the Gekko in the Gamecube (hence backwards compatibilty without emulation) and clock speeds and such can be independently verified.

@ thetonestarr
Obviously the IR camera in the wiimote doesn't work if someone stands in front of it either. Of course, if someone was standing in front of you it would obscure the view of the TV anyway, so it is a moot point.

And remember that you will still need an extra wiimote to use as a controller with the wii, so the additional cost is equal to that of the PS eye.


* "Tiny balls" in this context actually means "an excellent low-risk business strategy".
** "Huge balls" in this context actually means "a whole shitload of money".

Played_Out said: rasone77 said: Nintendo has tiny balls*. They released a massively underpowered console that made a profit on every unit sold, so they simply could not fail. MS and Sony were/are both selling their hardware at a loss. That is a risk, and therefore requires the "huge balls"** of which you speak. And remember that you will still need an extra wiimote to use as a controller with the wii, so the additional cost is equal to that of the PS eye. * "Tiny balls" in this context actually means "an excellent low-risk business strategy". ** "Huge balls" in this context actually means "a whole shitload of money".

I wouldn't say massively underpowered. I would call the PS3 massively overpowered for it's time, the 360 slightly overpowered, and the Wii slightly underpowered for it's time. Adjusting for inflation, the PS2 was cheaper than the PS2 was $100 cheaper than the 360, and the Wii was $100 cheaper than the PS2. The Wii is also only $50 cheaper than the GameCube from when it was released. For completeness, the GameCube was $50 cheaper than the PS2 when it was release after adjusting for inflation. The PS3 is twice that of the PS2 at launch.

MS and Sony did the same thing they did last time. Increase specs and improved controllers that are functionally the same as the previous console. That is no "risk." Nintendo released a system that could have fallen flat on it's face if people didn't want motion controllers, and since they tried it before and failed, it's no wonder they were surprised by the sheer demand for the Wii. That is risk. I think the one reason they did make the Wii slightly less powerful than what it probably could be was so that it could be as cheap as possible, and still produce a profit, but not too underpowered. Remember, they don't just produce the hardware, they make games for it. And they want the console to be so underpowered that they might as well be working on previous consoles. If they knew how well teh Wii would sell 2 years ago, I bet they would have made it slightly more powerful and brought the price up to $299. But it wouldn't make too much of a difference, and it certainly wouldn't include the HD graphics that everyone seems to want.

Luckily enough for the 2nd controller thing, 50% of all Wii owners have a 2nd controller because they bought WiiPlay. How many PS3 owners would have to buy the PS Eye to get to the 50% of the userbase basically "ready" for headtracking games? That is if in either consoles case you included with the game all things necessary for the game to work (the glasses in both cases, and a cover thing for the PSEye in the PS3s case). And since the Wiimote can be used in just about every game for the Wii, that's a much greater incentive to get a second Wiimote than to get a PSEye, which probably only works for a few games, and in some of those games probably doesn't do a whole lot (like in Burnout), that might add nothing to the game.

None I don't think we will see it until next generation.

obviously Nintendo cause they are the most innovative
Sony and MS are too stubborn and too busy with making their consoles powerful

Obviously, yes, you're right.

But the PS Eye won't work right if someone walks into the room, period. If someone walks into the range of the eye at all - EVEN behind the person, it can mess things up. It would require a lot of complicated coding to ensure that doesn't happen, and that would probably be expensive because it's quite difficult to ensure. The IR sensor only stops working if something actually gets in its way, and the coding is very simple.

And yes, you have a point there, except more people will already have an extra Wiimote because... well, it has a LOT of extra uses besides just being used for a few purposes. An extra Wiimote is pretty much something that EVERY Wii owner most likely already has.

Remember, guys, when Johnny Lee made the video, he did the project by himself without making any extra equipment. They could easily include a $2 IR camera with any compatible game, thus eliminating the need for an extra Wii-Mote altogether.