In my opinion people are getting crazy over this. It's just a camera ok, and that video just shows that it doesn't bring tons of new stuff at all.

I think that the Sony Motion Recognition is just more worthy.

Sony Motion Control can be the standart for every game just like wiimote and nunchuk, natal can't be the standart for every xbox game due to the obvious control limitations it has for being a camera.

Note: This is only my opinion, any quote replying a fanboyish ans stupid argument like "lolz no" will most likely be reported.

The differences are in the way that the software uses the camera output to map to an input for the game to use. In terms of the EyeToy, it is using algorithms that detect changes in colors and edges to determine movement. Detecting depth can be very tricky when using only pixel color information. This is most likely why it use the actual camera output for the game output as well. Such as just showing your video image as your character. Whereas Natal can easily translate the depth information into an avatar for any game.

Natal uses bursts of infrared light to determine the depth of each "pixel" of information. So a pixel will have both a color and depth associated with it. This makes creating a skeletal system possible and it makes precise depth detection possible. But it isn't just the motion detection that makes Natal interesting. It is the built in ability for developers to use facial and voice recognition out of the box. No development necessary on their part to do this. And it is all done on the on-board Natal chips, this way performance of the application is not drained by manipulating the hardware output.

No

/Thread

No it's completely different.

Although parallels could be drawn, I honestly don't think Microsoft really had ripping off the EyeToy as a goal. Yes, I know, it's a rare sight: Microsoft not seeking to rip someone off, but I think that was the case here. I think they were more fixated on the marketing potential of ZOMGREALOBJECTZZZZ than anything else, and the cameras came in as an implementation detail. As evidence for this, I submit the fact that they saw the need to add an infrared rangefinder to the two-lens system, rather than simply spacing the lenses an appropriate distance apart and parallaxing.

It's a good ripoff, if you want to call it that.

Not a ripoff, an improvement. From a different company.

this industry is about evolving ,,,so who cares if it's similar to eye toy.it's definitely improved compared to eye toy and that's what it counts.

Not a ripoff, but an improvement. Like ^^