Nintendos secret weapon to finally win this console war

oqvist said:
Nintendo have year after year making bigger profits then Sony so yes they did win ;)
Click to expand...



You gotta remember that Nintendo is videogames.
Sony is videogames, cameras, camcorders, TV, DVDs, and hundreds of other home electronics...not to mention Sony is one of the biggest record labels aswell as huge in the movie area.

Sony's also much heavier into R&D then nintendo is. Comming up with a new controller and slapping it on the DS is nowhere near as costly as developing the cell processor or blueray.

Nintendo moves USD$7.8 billion in Revenue
Sony moves $70.303 billion in Revenue

Nintendo profit has been on the rise with the Wii, but I dont think Sony has anything to worry about.

Keeping in mind, this is Sony on hard times, but your comparing a giant company like sony to a small one like nintendo.
 
Serpreme said:
We're talking video games here , pulling in outside revenue is silly and weak.
Click to expand...

We were talking company revenue, its all fair game.

The console was is just getting started. 2-3 years from now we will know for sure.
Right now, the Wii control system is the selling feature, but they can only ride that so long before the fact that its still a primitive gamecube in the days of high def big screens. The 360 seems to be at the pinnacle of its career, but I think the PS3 hardware will be its staying power in the long run.

When Sony released the PS2 in the 6th gen, it was simply a hardware powerhouse that pioneered the best of hardware with a new media system. In the end, it sold 120million units and absolutely crushed everything else in the long run. It had a slow start also.
 
Droc said:
We were talking company revenue, its all fair game.

The console was is just getting started. 2-3 years from now we will know for sure.
Right now, the Wii control system is the selling feature, but they can only ride that so long before the fact that its still a primitive gamecube in the days of high def big screens. The 360 seems to be at the pinnacle of its career, but I think the PS3 hardware will be its staying power in the long run.

When Sony released the PS2 in the 6th gen, it was simply a hardware powerhouse that pioneered the best of hardware with a new media system. In the end, it sold 120million units and absolutely crushed everything else in the long run. It had a slow start also.
Click to expand...

i have to disagree with the ps2 having a slow start. it never had a slow start like the ps3.
 
Droc said:
We were talking company revenue, its all fair game.

The console was is just getting started. 2-3 years from now we will know for sure.
Right now, the Wii control system is the selling feature, but they can only ride that so long before the fact that its still a primitive gamecube in the days of high def big screens. The 360 seems to be at the pinnacle of its career, but I think the PS3 hardware will be its staying power in the long run.

When Sony released the PS2 in the 6th gen, it was simply a hardware powerhouse that pioneered the best of hardware with a new media system. In the end, it sold 120million units and absolutely crushed everything else in the long run. It had a slow start also.
Click to expand...


the ps2 was the LEAST powerful of the last gen. and it did NOT have a slow start, it was the original ebay game system.

and compare sonys Profits with nintendos Profits. you may find that information rather surprising. also look at liquid assets.
 
Droc said:
but they can only ride that so long before the fact that its still a primitive gamecube in the days of high def big screens.
Click to expand...

Most people don't have hi def televisions. It was only about 35% of household in the USA last I heard. The rest of the world it's probably even lower, except Japan. And how many of those households have their hi def TV for the parents, while the kids console is hooked up to an older low def TV.
 
FYI, even though Sony is 10x bigger than Nintendo they actually had less net income last year.
 
forcefed said:
Unfortunatly when you're planted to your seat this has very little use, twisting your head while looking at the screen seems a bit awkward.
Click to expand...

You only have to turn your head a little to get a side view look. It's not like it's a 1:1 ratio, which would be useless.
 
l3ender said:
I saw this this morning and I must say it's pretty cool. Though I don't really know how it'd be implemented.
Click to expand...

I think ideally it would be used for one of those on-rail shooters like Time Crisis and House Of The Dead. It would be just perfect for those, since you'd need to aim/shoot at the screen and just move your view around a bit to come out from behind cover and such.

For FPS games this just wouldn't work unless you have screens all around you because you can't literally turn around and still see the TV. You'd need something like, "turn your head more than 30 degrees to pan view" or something...it just wouldn't work like a mouse.
 
This could be handy in fps games for leaning around corners . It would give it a bit of interaction with the game but wouldn't take away ones ability to aim and shoot.
 
BladeVenom said:
Most people don't have hi def televisions. It was only about 35% of household in the USA last I heard. The rest of the world it's probably even lower, except Japan. And how many of those households have their hi def TV for the parents, while the kids console is hooked up to an older low def TV.
Click to expand...

i bet that figure has risen dramaticly now
 
This would be totally awesome to add to FPS games for all game systems.
 
Cool video.

If your game console earns you a profit, you have won. Regardless of how much more or less the other guy has made. There is room for all 3 current systems to "win" imho. That is one of capitalism's redeeming qualities, there does not always have to be a looser. There often is, but there does not always have to be.

The only war is the one inside the fan boy's empty heads.
 
GORANKAR said:
If your game console earns you a profit, you have won. Regardless of how much more or less the other guy has made. There is room for all 3 current systems to "win" imho. That is one of capitalism's redeeming qualities, there does not always have to be a looser. There often is, but there does not always have to be.
Click to expand...

Good points. Boggles me why so many people are passionate about consoles "beating" others. They're all big companies who don't give a shit about you, they just want your money. Get some enjoyment out of the system(s) and move on. No reason to be walking endorsements for them online for no reason or compensation.

More on-topic, this is pretty cool stuff. Can use this in multiple genres, just takes some creativity to find the angle where this would work in each.
 
Droc said:
You gotta remember that Nintendo is videogames.
Sony is videogames, cameras, camcorders, TV, DVDs, and hundreds of other home electronics...not to mention Sony is one of the biggest record labels aswell as huge in the movie area.

Sony's also much heavier into R&D then nintendo is. Comming up with a new controller and slapping it on the DS is nowhere near as costly as developing the cell processor or blueray.

Nintendo moves USD$7.8 billion in Revenue
Sony moves $70.303 billion in Revenue

Nintendo profit has been on the rise with the Wii, but I dont think Sony has anything to worry about.

Keeping in mind, this is Sony on hard times, but your comparing a giant company like sony to a small one like nintendo.
Click to expand...
Sony developed neither BluRay nor the Cell by themselves, and I'd say the motion sensing was probably considerably harder to get to its current state than "comming [sic] up with a new controller and slapping it on the DS" (do you mean GameCube, or what?) considering how long it took Sony to rip it off and throw it in their controllers.

On a side note, revenues don't mean anything compared to profits. Nintendo profits with each Wii sold, Sony loses hundreds of dollars per PS3. It would almost be a good thing for Sony that people don't buy nearly as many PS3s as they do Wiis or 360s...except for the fact that there's tends of thousands of the things piling up in the distribution channel (although not as much any more, now that they've lowered the price and further increased the amount that they lose per console.)

Yes, we all know that Sony makes things other than the PS3. However, we also know that there's only one division of Sony responsible for making game consoles. I'm not sure if Sony is legally required to file revenue or operating cost statements for their individual divisions or if that information is publicly available, but I'm pretty sure if you did find it, it wouldn't be good news. Not that MS is in a good position either, I don't think the Xbox made a profit in all 5 years of its life and I'm fairly sure they're deep in the red with the 360, as well.

And Nintendo is shooting itself in the foot once again and letting 3rd party developers release a ton of gimmicky bullshit, pretty much screwing it over in the long term. All of this just proves corporations apparently don't learn lessons, ever.
 
Oh man that is awesome, and that guy is wicked smart, nothing like that would ever come out of the Comp Sci program and my college.
 
All of the discussions about who is/was more profitable isnt what this thread is about, yet most of page 2 and 3 talks about it????:confused::confused::confused:

WHO CARES!!!!!

Back OT:

This is HUGE!!!!

Sure, this technology has been around for while, but I have not seen it implemented in this way before.

Lets understand something here.....

VR and 3D are different from eachother, believe it or not....There IS a difference.

There isnt a whole lot of VR "anything" out there right now. Of course, this depends on your definition of VR. I can say playing WoW is playing in VR. And then, the games themselves are in 3D - i.e. the game isnt just a side scrolling game, you can go backwards and forwards, side to side and even up and down and diagonaly. But, is it TRUE VR/3D? Not really.

Lets look at the root of the word of 3D....Three Dimensional.

Add all the shaders and high graphical stuff you want to make a flat picture rounded and stand out, but in the end, even with best of the best graphics card out there, its still an image on a flat screen (which the guy in the video talked about at the beginning). For something to be TRUE 3D, it MUST have/create the feeling of DEPTH to the viewer. As he showed in the video, you have to have a sensation that you can actually reach out and touch the "thing" your viewing as well as see behind it. Again, take the BEST game out there graphic wise and even though its the latest and greatest, its still FLAT 2D image.

So, what is VR then?

Thats a tougher question. But to put it in a nutshell....VR would be like playing a game where you had to go into a room and flip on the light switch. BUT, for it to be TRUE VR, you need to FEEL the pressure of that switch. You need to be able to reach out and touch it and FLICK the switch. Instead of pressing the "E" button or "USE" button to turn the switch on, you can actually reach out, touch the switch, flick your finger and flip it on. No keyboard required.

Combining the 2.....pffft. needless to say, would be difficult.

This guy is on the right track to TRUE 3D gaming. NOT VR. <--but not that far off mind you.

The part in the video where he gets closer to the screen and can see more of the stadium is ABOVE and BEYOND the 3D we have all seen at the movies. Being able to move right or left to see the right or left side.....we ALL have done this while at a ball game.

Now, imagine this implemented into a game, MoH for say.....Sure, there is a "lean" and look feature, but its wayyyy different than what this guy has achieved. Imagine playing MoH and moving your head slightly to the right to peak around a corner. NICE ehh???

Ive already seen the development of PAIN sensor jackets/vests you can put on while playing a game and when you get shot in the game, the vest delivers either a shock or some sort of THUMP which is slightly painfull to the wearer.

They already have SCENT which can be sent thru the computer so you can SMELL what you are seeing on the screen.

Sound is already kickass and just getting better.

All of the human senses are practically replicated already or being worked on....It wont be long before we have a game which, when your running thru a field getting from point A to point B, you can literally smell the roses as well as go over and pick them...and actually FEEL the stem and maybe a thorn or 2, heh.

All you guys teasing this guy on video.....heh, all I can say is your looking at a millionare at his beginning. Give him 10 years or so and you'll be saying to yourself....I remember that guy wayyyyy back a long time ago on a video on something called YouTube.......He can very well be the next Nitendo Guru guy.
 
maverick212 said:
Good points. Boggles me why so many people are passionate about consoles "beating" others. They're all big companies who don't give a shit about you, they just want your money. Get some enjoyment out of the system(s) and move on. No reason to be walking endorsements for them online for no reason or compensation.

More on-topic, this is pretty cool stuff. Can use this in multiple genres, just takes some creativity to find the angle where this would work in each.
Click to expand...

I think the reason people are concerned about a console beating another is justifying their purchases. And I don't really see this in many things only racing, fps and flight sim.
 
Why did he switch the sensor bar and Wii-Remote? I don't see why it wouldn't have worked the other way too since it's just measuring the relative position and distance of the screen based on the location of the IR source. Why not make a headset that has an IR camera builtin to send back head position data for games to take advantage of? That way you're not wasting a Wii-Remote.
 
you don´t think it would be inconvenient to have a wii remote on your head :D
 
I think that demo's great, it's one of those ideas that seems so obvious when you've seen it done, but takes someone with that extra bit of vision, and of course know-how, to come up with in the first place.
As for the "welcome to 1999/TrackIR" brigade, the point isn't that he invented head tracking because obviously he didn't, the point is he did it with a device that everyone who owns a Wii already has (plus a PC). If you had a Wii in 1999 I'm genuinely impressed.
 
the way those 2d sprite looking tartets looked made me dream of classic Doom using this tech. That would be better than all the shooters in the last 10 years combined :eek:
 
roz1281 said:
the way those 2d sprite looking tartets looked made me dream of classic Doom using this tech. That would be better than all the shooters in the last 10 years combined :eek:
Click to expand...

wolfenstein 3d with this ... hmmmmm
 
oqvist said:
you don´t think it would be inconvenient to have a wii remote on your head :D
Click to expand...

That's why I said a headset with an IR camera (or two) built in. They can be made pretty small and even incorporate a microphone and speaker.
 
Wow, just wow. The possibilities with this + the Wii would be limitless fun. Even simple gallery games entetainment value would be greatly increased..and the Fight Night idea. Wow, too abd they closed the originial fight night studio.
 
I'm sure Nintendo already knew about it long time ago but don't want any liability suites for people banging their heads on walls and falling over playing VR games.

Just look at the trouble they already got into with the dropped wiimotes earlyer.
 
simultaneous 2 player could be tricky with this tech. But it would make FPS shooters kick ass. Actually ducking in real life to get behind cover and peeking round corners and over ledges would be mental with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top