By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - EA: motion controllers end up with half the market

http://kotaku.com/5284630/ea-considered-doing-its-own-natal-backs-sensible-motion-gaming

EA's Riccitiello: "My guess is that where this ends up is: motion controllers end up with half the market. And the other half still ends up with a more traditional game controller."

Sounds about right to me.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.



Around the Network

But Wii already has half the market..and with Ps3 and 360 set to implement motion controls wouldn't that make it more than half the market?



Bet between Slimbeast and Arius Dion about Wii sales 2009:


If the Wii sells less than 20 million in 2009 (as defined by VGC sales between week ending 3d Jan 2009 to week ending 4th Jan 2010) Slimebeast wins and get to control Arius Dion's sig for 1 month.

If the Wii sells more than 20 million in 2009 (as defined above) Arius Dion wins and gets to control Slimebeast's sig for 1 month.

So EA's saying that PS3 wand controller + Natal will amount to 1.2% of the market?

Sounds about right to me.



Wii has more 20 million sellers than PS3 has 5 million sellers.

Acolyte of Disruption

We'll he's talking about game sales. Just because the Wii focuses on motion controls not all of it's games (VC for instance) use motion controls. So it wouldn't be 100% of the market just because the all 3 have motion controls on their systems.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.



Unlikely.

Traditional controllers and motion controllers are like bows and muskets.
First, motion controllers have their disadvantages, and only good for a few things, like tennis, and shooting. Just as the first muskets were only good for one short ranged shot per minute, and made for people who found using bows too difficult.

But even if the current technology is "casual" in theory, the concept itself is simply more advanced. It is more lifelike, more intuitive. Motion controllers will evolve in the casual market, until they become good enough for more complex games, just as even the most professional bowmen chose firearms after they became more powerful.



Around the Network
Alterego-X said:

Unlikely.

Traditional controllers and motion controllers are like bows and muskets.
First, motion controllers have their disadvantages, and only good for a few things, like tennis, and shooting. Just as the first muskets were only good for one short ranged shot per minute, and made for people who found using bows too difficult.

But even if the current technology is "casual" in theory, the concept itself is simply more advanced. It is more lifelike, more intuitive. Motion controllers will evolve in the casual market, until they become good enough for more complex games, just as even the most professional bowmen chose firearms after they became more powerful.

They will never be advanced enough for some games or will only be used as a minor feature because some games just can't use motion controls effectively.  Riccitiello has it right.  Games with duck and cover FPS games or jumping platformers will get tiring quickly for most people.  RPGs will never need motion controls except for gimicky slashing controls or point and click interface which is entirely unecessary.  FPS games will always suffer precision problems worse than keyboard and mouse for most gamers using motion control.

There will be certain games that excel at motion control and those that will suffer greatly using motion control and will need to focus on either exclusively using traditional controls or using a hybrid which uses motion control sparingly.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.