PDA

View Full Version : PS3 controller


sam10685
May 16, 2006, 03:06 AM
so i was just looking at my see-thru smoke colored PS2 controller and i noticed there's lots of emptiness under the thingy's that give it the shock feature in the handles. i mean, i know the motion sensor thing whatever it is and the blue-tooth must take up some added space but i was just wonderin'... it seems to me that they'd be able to put a rapidly-spinning half-orb into atleast one of the handles by november 17th to give it rumble. what do u think?

honeytoast
May 16, 2006, 03:37 AM
i believe the reason they left out rumble was because it interferes with the motion tracking, not due to space

MacRumorUser
May 16, 2006, 03:41 AM
i believe the reason they left out rumble was because it interferes with the motion tracking, not due to space

BLESS! You really are that gullable ;)

SONY removed rumble because they got seriously caught last year in a patent infringment case over the rumble. A case that they lossed and were forced to pay millions in back royalties and costs to the plaintive. A company who I believe nintendo actually have a share in.

This is Sony's attempt at filling up the controller with Somthing to make it seem they are trying to do somthing for the consumer, when in fact they are just saying SCREW YOU!

People take off the Rose tinted glasses and wake up and smell the coffee.........

Dagless
May 16, 2006, 06:13 AM
Yup. I believe Nintendo does have shares in the company and Microsoft paid an out of court settlement.

sam10685
May 16, 2006, 06:37 AM
i believe the reason they left out rumble was because it interferes with the motion tracking, not due to space

ahh. nintendo didn't seem to think it would interfere with the motion sensing.

Haoshiro
May 16, 2006, 07:35 AM
While I very much like rumble, as do many people, I also know many other people who dislike the feature quite a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to a 50/50 split...

Someone should make a PS2 emulator for 360... (insert horrible lawsuits), the PS2 emulators on PC are getting quite good!

/me pats his bleem!cast disc

ReanimationLP
May 16, 2006, 08:01 AM
While I very much like rumble, as do many people, I also know many other people who dislike the feature quite a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to a 50/50 split...

Someone should make a PS2 emulator for 360... (insert horrible lawsuits), the PS2 emulators on PC are getting quite good!

/me pats his bleem!cast disc

Oh really, where can I get this good emulator? The ones I've used on a 2.0 GHz Athlon 64 are 5-10 FPS just booting the BIOS. >.>'

mrgreen4242
May 16, 2006, 08:10 AM
While I very much like rumble, as do many people, I also know many other people who dislike the feature quite a lot. I wouldn't be surprised if it was close to a 50/50 split...

Someone should make a PS2 emulator for 360... (insert horrible lawsuits), the PS2 emulators on PC are getting quite good!

/me pats his bleem!cast disc

I'd very much doubt it's a 50/50 split on rumble. MAYBE a 50/25/25 split (like it, don't like it, don't care). I'd be more inclined to say it's 60/20/20, as the majority of people I a) know like the feature, b) "talk to" online were holding breath/crossing fingers for at least rumble in the Wiimote back before it was in there.

I know that it adds something to the games because my wife, a non-gamer who plays Mario Party and Kart on occasion was playing my Mario Kart on my DS and said "did you say they make a rumble back for this?" and I said "yep" to which she replied "you need to get that". Anecdotal, sure, but I think that's the way most people feel about it... don't really think about it while it's there, but when it's gone you notice it and want it back.

Dagless
May 16, 2006, 08:51 AM
Funny, the Sony fanboys I spoke too (who somehow missed E3) were all shocked, and dare I say very peeved that Sony lost the rumble. I told my 360-owning mate and he laughed. probably more than a healthy amount too.

There may be 1 or 2 who don't mind no rumble. But at least in the UK we have become accustomed and love our rumbling controllers.

grapes911
May 16, 2006, 08:56 AM
Rumble pads have their moments, but anyone who thinks this could make or break a system are fooling themselves.

Mavimao
May 16, 2006, 09:04 AM
Rumble pads have their moments, but anyone who thinks this could make or break a system are fooling themselves.

Oh but not supporting HD is a step backwards...

Priorities. Tisk, tisk.

grapes911
May 16, 2006, 09:08 AM
Oh but not supporting HD is a step backwards...

Priorities. Tisk, tisk.
Your point?

Mavimao
May 16, 2006, 09:18 AM
Your point?

I didn't mean that directly towards you (I apologize) but rather towards all of these gaming fanatics who poo-poo the Wii due to it's lack of HD, but will defend Sony's machine as the height of technological advancement despite the fact that they've been stripping announced features one after the other, and that they can't even design a new controller.

I read a post on a forum somewhere, I don't remember where, but there was this guy who said: I only play video games in HD with 5.1 surround sound. Nothing else.

I don't know about a lot of you out there, but my Atari 2600 plugged in through the coax plug gets the most gaming on my tv.

grapes911
May 16, 2006, 09:22 AM
I didn't mean that directly towards you (I apologize) but rather towards all of these gaming fanatics who poo-poo the Wii due to it's lack of HD, but will defend Sony's machine as the height of technological advancement despite the fact that they've been stripping announced features one after the other, and that they can't even design a new controller. I'll do it then. Most of the time I forget the rumble feature is even there. I just don't pay attention to it. But not to have HD, that just sucks.

XNine
May 16, 2006, 09:40 AM
I'll do it then. Most of the time I forget the rumble feature is even there. I just don't pay attention to it. But not to have HD, that just sucks.

Aye. I've NEVER liked rumbling controllers. Why not making the system 5.1 so I can hear where the hits are coming from to know I'm getting shot. Rumble sucks, it really does, it's nothing but annoying.

But to be serious, HD is becoming a STANDARD. The FCC soon will stop off-air antena signals in the US, and they are shoving HD down our throats. So, when I manage to get my HDTV, this makes it all the more glorious.

Mavimao
May 16, 2006, 09:43 AM
I'll do it then. Most of the time I forget the rumble feature is even there. I just don't pay attention to it. But not to have HD, that just sucks.

:rolleyes:

I'm sorry that it sucks that my salary doesn't even allow me to buy an HD tv, so I guess that means next gen gaming is done for me... Oh wait, someone is making sure that I can experience next-gen games and won't cost me two month's rent.

(This just shows what market Nintendo is at the same time isolating and embracing)

grapes911
May 16, 2006, 09:47 AM
:rolleyes:

I'm sorry that it sucks that my salary doesn't even allow me to buy an HD tv, so I guess that means next gen gaming is done for me... Oh wait, someone is making sure that I can experience next-gen games and won't cost me two month's rent.

(This just shows what market Nintendo is at the same time isolating and embracing)

No one is forcing you to get an HD TV. But why should those of us with HD TVs not be able to utilize that technology?

I've said this over and over. The 360 and the PS3 are aimed at similar markets of high-end, cutting edge gamers.. The Wii is aimed at budget gamers and children who's parents purchase their systems. They aren't really comparable.

zelmo
May 16, 2006, 09:56 AM
I don't really care all that much that Sony is pulling the rumble out. It's cool in some games, but not something I will miss all that much. Be nice to keep it. I just wish they could man up and tell the truth about why it will be missing. Can't fit, my arse.
I love my PS, PS2, and PSP (Xbox, GC, and DS, too), and I'll be buying the PS3 (to go with a Wii:rolleyes: ), but Sony is not doing themselves any favors with the way they are rolling up to release. Disinformation, selective omissions, crippled 'core' system, crazy high pricing. They'll still be standing at the end of this generation, but they may not be in the lead. I think it's going to Nintendo.

Mavimao
May 16, 2006, 10:04 AM
No one is forcing you to get an HD TV. But why should those of us with HD TVs not be able to utilize that technology?

I've said this over and over. The 360 and the PS3 are aimed at similar markets of high-end, cutting edge gamers.. The Wii is aimed at budget gamers and children who's parents purchase their systems. They aren't really comparable.

I know no one is forcing me to get an HD tv: but the reason nintendo isn't supporting 720p and up is because it takes more processing power/RAM to make an HD image AND have a good framerate. The more power and RAM you have, the more expensive it is. If Nintendo wanted to, they could have put all that power into the Wii...but it would have been expensive.

Now that they realize that they can't compete with gigaflops/polygons, etc (just look at the Gamecube, N64) they're going to compete with their low price and wacky controller.

Haoshiro
May 16, 2006, 10:17 AM
Rumble can be great when it's done well... just... a lot of games don't do it well (or over do it).

Haoshiro
May 16, 2006, 10:25 AM
Now that they realize that they can't compete with gigaflops/polygons, etc (just look at the Gamecube, N64) they're going to compete with their low price and wacky controller.

Oh Nintendo could, they definitely have the resources to compete at that level if they wanted to. But they don't, their approach and perspective is completely different. They've said these things many times.

They want to keep their game development costs between $4-$5 million rather then the $10-$20+ million that is quickly becoming common.

That is why they dropped Rare, who kept wanting bigger budgets for larger scale games.

Development kits for Wii are about $2K from the last report I heard, they really want to keep costs low; maximizing their profit. To me, that is just a smart strategy and it has worked very well for them, especially with GBA and DS.

Sdashiki
May 16, 2006, 10:25 AM
Wow.

People complaining about rumble...

last I checked, all games that have a rumble feature, have an

OFF option

dont like? turn it off, jeez dont complain about it.

Dagless
May 16, 2006, 10:39 AM
No one is forcing you to get an HD TV. But why should those of us with HD TVs not be able to utilize that technology?

I've said this over and over. The 360 and the PS3 are aimed at similar markets of high-end, cutting edge gamers.. The Wii is aimed at budget gamers and children who's parents purchase their systems. They aren't really comparable.

Whoa, sorry thats a bad comment. I'm a cutting edge gamer. I bought a £200 graphics card in my desktop PC the other day, just so I can run all these current games in my monitors native 1600*1200 resolution. I have a HDTV in my bedroom that ran my mates 360 very well.

Who the hell are you to categorise me as a budget gamer, or that my parents buy my systems? I could go out and buy a PS3 and 360 now if I wanted. and a PSP for the train ride home, or maybe the entire Top 10 DS game shelf in Game. I have more than enough, I have 5.1 and a HDTV, I'm building a new super gaming desktop estimated to cost between £1900-2200. Is that cutting edge enough for you? Does it offend you that I will not be buying a PS3 and 360 but a Wii only (unless Halo 3 is god)?

Jesus. enough with the stereotyping.

Anyways. I won't buy a PS3. One of those reasons is the lack of rumble. I love it personally. MGS's heartbeat tracker? the way some horror games use it to build up the tension? Zelda's item hunting. I didn't buy a Wavebird primarily because of the lack of rumble. Masses slated the lack of rumble on that controller. It isn't different now. you may not care for rumble but I see it as a step back, a different thing altogether from Nintendo's refusal to step forward.

grapes911
May 16, 2006, 10:46 AM
Whoa, sorry thats a bad comment. I'm a cutting edge gamer. I bought a £200 graphics card in my desktop PC the other day, just so I can run all these current games in my monitors native 1600*1200 resolution. I have a HDTV in my bedroom that ran my mates 360 very well.

Who the hell are you to categorise me as a budget gamer, or that my parents buy my systems? I could go out and buy a PS3 and 360 now if I wanted. and a PSP for the train ride home, or maybe the entire Top 10 DS game shelf in Game. I have more than enough, I have 5.1 and a HDTV, I'm building a new super gaming desktop estimated to cost between £1900-2200. Is that cutting edge enough for you? Does it offend you that I will not be buying a PS3 and 360 but a Wii only (unless Halo 3 is god)?

Jesus. enough with the stereotyping.
It was a generalization. I didn't go out and survey every possible potential video game system purchaser. Some people (Note: this sentence is not a generalization but a comment directed specifically at you) are way to sensitive about things and need to chill out. But answer me this, if you like cutting edge gaming, why the hell would you purchase a Wii (I really do like that name more and more) over the other two? If you just like the Wii style better, than fine. I can't argue with you over an opinion. But no one can consider the Wii more cutting edge than the 360 or the PS3.

EDIT: And by the way, I never said WHO will purchase which systems. I stated which market the companies are trying to target. There is a huge difference. If Nintendo was targeting the cutting edge market, they would have created a more powerful system. No one can deny that.

sam10685
May 16, 2006, 11:05 AM
Wow.

People complaining about rumble...

last I checked, all games that have a rumble feature, have an

OFF option

dont like? turn it off, jeez dont complain about it.

winner. funniest post of the day!

Haoshiro
May 16, 2006, 11:06 AM
Yes, grapes basically said the same thing to me about 'not being a true cutting edge gamer'.

Frankly I am not anymore but I still do not see how one comes to such a conclusion based on what someone wants to buy or doesn't.

I used to keep a PC up-to-date for the latest and greatest, I used to pre-order every system made. Even when I was doing this I skipped the PS2 entirely. I owned just about every mainstream (for their era) console form the Atari 2600 to the Xbox.

To be honest I have since gotten a life; I'm married, have a daughter, and run two businesses (web development and coffee shop). My priorities have changed but my interest in gaming has not (you may even hear of me releasing some games in the future). Whether or not a PS3 is worth $600 to me is NOT a matter of whether I am "cutting edge" or have the funds.

So really, grapes should realize that just because some prefers another system, complains about the price of PS3, or simply refuses to buy one has no bearing on what sort of gamer they are.

Cutting edge does not mean buying every piece of hardware thrown at you - especially formats that have not become standardized and may never gain mass exceptance (Blu-ray/HD-DVD).

The fact is that PS3 has nothing new to offer consumers over what is or will be available at its release but the Wii does. The fact that it does not support HD resolutions means nothing. It has "HD controls" instead! ;)

</rant>

grapes911
May 16, 2006, 11:18 AM
Yes, grapes basically said the same thing to me about 'not being a true cutting edge gamer'.
. . .

If you read the Edit I put at the bottom of my post, you'll see that I pretty much agree with you. This whole cutting edge thing has nothing to do with what people purchase. It does have a lot to do with the target market.

Blu-ray, bluetooth, built-in wirless, HDMI connection, and a brand new processor. There should be no debate that Sony is targeting "cutting edge gamers".

But Nintendo has publicly made it known that new, high-end technology, hi-def graphics, etc was not their primary concern. They wanted to focus on the games, game play, and making an affordable system. I do not fault them for this at all. I'm not saying that "true gamers" or whatever you think of yourselves as shouldn't purchase a Wii. I'm saying that if you are a cutting edge gamer looking for the newest, faster, most up-to-date technology, then Nintendo is not marketing towards you. Nintendo is marketing towards an entirely different market.

Haoshiro
May 16, 2006, 11:28 AM
If you read the Edit I put at the bottom of my post, you'll see that I pretty much agree with you. This whole cutting edge thing has nothing to do with what people purchase. It does have a lot to do with the target market.

Blu-ray, bluetooth, built-in wirless, HDMI connection, and a brand new processor. There should be no debate that Sony is targeting "cutting edge gamers".

But Nintendo has publicly made it known that new, high-end technology, hi-def graphics, etc was not their primary concern. They wanted to focus on the games, game play, and making an affordable system. I do not fault them for this at all. I'm not saying that "true gamers" or whatever you think of yourselves as shouldn't purchase a Wii. I'm saying that if you are a cutting edge gamer looking for the newest, faster, most up-to-date technology, then Nintendo is not marketing towards you. Nintendo is marketing towards an entirely different market.

There should be no debate, but Sony has left the door open for such debates.

How/Why? There Basic system, for one. They are splitting their userbase and ultimate forcing the "cutting edge gamers" to buy the more expensive model if they actually want these cutting-edge features the PS3 is said to offer.

Furthermore, Bluetooth isn't that new, neither is wireless, nor HDMI (DVI with HDCP and audio). That leave Blu-ray which at this point can be seen as Laser Disc or Minidiscs... yes it's new and better then other techs, but nobody knows if it will get mass adoption.

I personally don't think purely graphics (or resolutions) defines what is cutting edge. Nintendo has cutting edge input technology in the Wii. Great visuals only takes you so far (FF:TSW).

Nintendo is marketing towards everyone except those that care about little more then pure graphics. That means general public, gamers, kids, etc etc. Sony is focusing exclusively on those that feel awesome graphics alone will change their life.

So in that sense, I think Nintendo is targetting a much broader landscape that includes hard core gamers as well as everyone else, while Sony is not.

Dagless
May 16, 2006, 11:30 AM
Wow.

People complaining about rumble...

last I checked, all games that have a rumble feature, have an

OFF option

dont like? turn it off, jeez dont complain about it.

Better still! I have a number of 3rd party controllers with a Rumble Off switch on the front! And yep. every game I've seen has the option to turn it off anyways. Least on the Cube.

takao
May 16, 2006, 11:42 AM
well if you always want to be cutting edge there is only one plattform

the PC. Period.

seriously jsu t look at crysis.. that game won't be ported to "next generatioN" because it lacks power already

1-1,5 year from now console tech will seriously old already

as usual

grapes911
May 16, 2006, 11:43 AM
There Basic system, for one. They are splitting their userbase and ultimate forcing the "cutting edge gamers" to buy the more expensive model if they actually want these cutting-edge features the PS3 is said to offer.I think MS made a bad decision with two versions of the 360 and I think Sony took that one step stupider by not giving a viable way to upgrade from one to the other. But I don't think the base system makes the whole thing PS3 in general less cutting edge.

Furthermore, Bluetooth isn't that new, neither is wireless, nor HDMI (DVI with HDCP and audio). That leave Blu-ray which at this point can be seen as Laser Disc or Minidiscs... yes it's new and better then other techs, but nobody knows if it will get mass adoption.They may not be new, but they are new to gaming systems and they are technologies than the other two systems lack. And the fact that Blu-ray hasn't caught on (and may not ever), makes the system even more cutting edge.

I personally don't think purely graphics (or resolutions) defines what is cutting edge. No, but everything you mentioned above does.

Nintendo has cutting edge input technology in the Wii.Agreed, and I'll be the first to admit that I can't wait try out that controller. But 1 cutting edge feature doesn't make it a cutting edge system when the rest of the hardware is similar to the PS2 and the Xbox.

Haoshiro
May 16, 2006, 12:00 PM
We'll just have to agree to disagree, since those features, to me, do not really effect the console in terms of gaming for me, so the fact they are new for game consoles doesn't apply [in my eyes]. Blu-ray is cutting edge, it's just not a wise purchase [in my opinion] since an HD format has not stabalized (and may not this gen). But hey, early adopters are always the ones that get burned and ripped off, that's part of the reason I gave that up.

And takao is right, cutting edge is PC bar-none. I signaled my definite departure for the "cutting edge" scene when I sold my PC and put an iMac [Intel Core Duo] on my desk.

XNine
May 16, 2006, 12:14 PM
Funny how people are bitching about "Cutting Edge" gaming on a 600 dollar system when a Brand New High-end Graphics Card costs nearly that much, if not more.

The difference is that you are getting a system specifically geared to gaming, as opposed to a system that has to run far more many processes while also gaming. An awesome gaming rig will probably cost near 3 Grand, and 600 bucks for a Console is like "OMGWTFBBQ?!?!??!" :rolleyes: Consoles are meant for games first and foremost. Streaming media content, movies, etc are all afterthoughts.

If you don't like the pricing, if it's too expensive for you, don't bitch, just don't buy it. IF HD is of no concern for you, that's great, but others REALLY want it. And just because the Xbox and PS3 are HD, doesn't mean that they won't be able to display on SD screens. My 360 does over S-Video, and it's a great picture. Not as great as HD, but you can tell the difference between the original Xbox and the 360, it's night and day jsut on an SD screen.

"CUTTING EDGE" DOES mean being on the verge of new technology before it's a standard. Sorry, anyone who thinks differently is obviously wrong. Holographic displays, 802.11n, Bluray and HD DVD are cutting edge technologies. That's what cutting edge is: brand new, not yet standardized, and highly expensive.

2nyRiggz
May 16, 2006, 12:20 PM
Everytime i come here i hear complaints.....the rumble won't be missed by me. The rumble was a plus but now we got the tilt thingy.....time for a change so let there be a change.

Am i the only one that likes the PS3 controller?.....i think it is nice n stuffs

Bless