NowGamer: Dr. Richard Marks, the man behind PlayStation Move, has told NowGamer how important it is for developers that motion control peripherals use as little processing overhead as possible...
Yeah. When Microsoft pulled the CPU out of Natal/Kinect, they made it sound like it would not be a big deal. But developers know differently. They know that Kinect will have a major impact on the available resources of the game system.
Don't take my word for it. Just look at the Kinect games and the Kinect tech demos. They're all painfully simple.
The more I hear talk about move and kinect, the more apparently clear it becomes that truly microsoft really does have something to worry about when it comes to the move! And its become palpitable, just listen to the xbox fanatics they are afraid of the potential that the ps3 move has , so much so that they can hear their own heartbeats with ringing in the ears! This like trying to convince yourselves that there is no such thing as monsters, even though you can hear heavy breathing coming from under the bed. Microsoft and their fanboy brigade have made it their mission and full time job to blacklist, tarnish even slander the reputation of sony to get ahead. But now their time is short and they know it, that is why they are doing everything in their power to drag sony down with them
games like heavenly sword and the first motorstorm still look better and do more than most 360 games and multi-platform ps3 games. i mean, things have improved but, not by THAT much unless we are talking about 3rd party multi-platforms.
36T has a point... until you compare the early Move games to early Kinect games. Move wins... again. Kinect will sell like crazy for a little while and then drop off the face of the earth. Move will build slowly as Socom 4 and Killzone 3 Dual Shock players start to understand they are being destroyed by the Move users. Of course the use of the 360's CPU is a problem, just not one that effects it's potential to play real games. It's basic design does that on it's own. At those below who think Kinect will improve with the next XBox, don't be silly. The same limitations that make it a joke this generation will make it a joke next generation. Move is just better all around. Face it.
dude all you talk is the sales talk...why do that? when you get kinect your gonna be stuck with kinectimals and some other mini games...what will sales do for you then
Think about it though, they aren't really targeting us as consumers for the product. It may be simple, but that's more than enough to please casual gamers
The xbox was supposed to be easy to develop for with no real tricks to get optimizations while the ps3 takes a little bit more work but the end result can be much better (ie learning to properly use the cores)..
So if the above statement is true, as it has pretty much been accepted to be, then it doesn't really make sense that the xbox would have really any significant amount of unseen potential left at this point in the game... The selling point was that it wouldn't be hard to get the most out of it right off the bat.
now we are trying to do a 180 and say that there are optimizations that no one had a clue about for the past 5 years that will double the system's performance and make the processing requirements for the kinect negligible.. Or maybe we are saying that We bought a system where all the developers were too lazy to try and figure out anything new for the past 5 years, and now we wave a magic wand and *BING* the performance is there...
I've seen alot of gimmicks and trickery used by recent 360 games and i've seen improvements in cg, but when we talk about amazing graphics we are really referring to "in-game play"... not cg... referring to trailers of games that show almost no in-game play is kind of pointless..
Example of trickery: ALAN WAKE: the whole flashlight thing was cool, but you realize this was a trick so that they didn't have to draw to the whole screen. This freed up more resources for the part of the screen that wasn't black.. It also still lacked far behind UC2 in its attention to details.
UC2 is a benchmark because of the amazing graphical details that were implemented in the game.. Details that no other games have really come close to matching..
And yes it is pretty amazing that after being out almost a year, games are still struggling to match its level of quality and detail... especially amazing when this game came out less than 2 years after the original uncharted.
Getting Back to the point: The kinect is centered around casual games... i really don't see it being applied to many hardcore games for the reason of processor drag.. Kinect has been focused on casual games and media applications... its going to be cool in that area.
The move allows for much easier implementation into hardcore high budget games at the expense of still using a peripheral...
Honestly, im probably getting both.. and honestly after a few months, i probably won't use either that much... and they will collect dust like my wii does now... except for once in a great while...
It's probably going to be taxing for a game like Gears 3 but so far all Kinect games seem kind of animated and should be fine. If developers are constantly figuring out news ways to push system performance I don't see how Dr.Move can say what the limits are pretty much.
The 360 is ALREADY limited as is. Think about it. If MS could do a UC2 level game on the 360, they would have done it. Now, Kinect comes along and limits the 360 even more. How is that good? Heck, soon enough 360 game and Wii games will be indistinguishable.
Rage already looks better than UC2 as well as certain elements in games like Alan Wake and even Gears 3 is up there if not beyond. 360 is constantly progressing and putting an end to all of the it's maxed out claims. You hold no credibility period if you think UC2 is the end all be all game. Sure it looks great but there are better looking games on the way.
A few months ago PS3 fanboys were saying that Gears of War 2 was the limit for the 360. They said, just as you are saying now, "Think about it, if MS could make a game that looks better than Gears of War 2, they would have done it already."
With further software optimization, developers will continue to make better-looking games on the 360. It's a matter of time, not of power.
Imperator, I have to say, you are pretty dull. Can you improve your comments?
CandyStop...PC rage may be 'better' looking than UC2...but the 360/PS3 versions sure as hell are not...and with Carmack already stating how much of a problem they were having with 360 disc space, and how much it taxes their 'megatexture' tech for ID5...it simply isn't in the cards for a console version of Rage to top UC2...
don't get me wrong, Rage still looks great on consoles...but its easy to dismiss how incredible Uncharted 2 is visually this long after release...I stopped reading once I noticed Alan Wake and Gears 3...so I really hope you didn't say anything about those games compared to UC2 either...
and SOAD...what 360 game has topped Gears 2?...from a technical standpoint; Alan Wake did some things better, particularly with lighting...but extremely dated animation, character models, and a very low resolution hold it back compared to that of what UE3 is capable of...ME2 is arguably better looking than Gears 2, but thats the same engine anyway, and isn't doing anything technical that Gears 2 isn't...just a different art direction that some may find more appealing...
so the 'ps3 fanboys screaming Gears 2 was the limit' is still somewhat grounded isn't it?...I sure haven't seen a game on the 360 that trashes it...thats for sure...
It is not "SOny", it is just the guy behind the MOVE tech answering a question. I think he is wrong in a way: Kinect is not supposed to be used in games that really push the console to its limits, mostly in casual stuff so it will have power available.
hes the guy behind move tech who also made eyetoy and during thats development was working with the camera that makes kinect possible frankly with his resume ill believe what he says
the amount of negative response for kinect is driving up the popularity meter on the main page.
I guess bad press is better than no press. The ps3 fans need to be in the move articles rather than kinect ones. This one is a move one but to get hits it is referencing kinect. Go figure.
As for this post, Marks never said kinect directly in any of his comments. The answers reflect as if the questions were specifically about move with no relation or mention of kinect at all.
I mean, it isnt hard to ask the question "how important is it to keep cpu usage low when working with move?" and then rephrase it in writing to "Asked if the rumored Kinect overheads would pose a problem for developers...."
The second question sounds more intriguing than the first but can be used with the same answer given.
Journalism can be tricky. Just because it's in writing doesnt make it ALWAYS fact.
Right now, we only saw like 4 [FOUR] games that look like mini-games more than anything, with no powerful graphics and that kind of stuff
Those 4 games have problems, Lag, flawed motion detection, not detection at all and with the amount of "restrictions" the add-on has, like, not be able to play while sit cos kinect can't differentiate the couch with the legs, use only tight clothes cos kinect can't track movements with baggy clothes, kinect need 6 feet of free space to play with it, problems with illumination, problem detecting colors, black or dark colors essentially, flawed detection and more
So, people can say whatever they want, it's more than obvious that there is a problem with the device, or MS was thinking to high about this camera and at the end the add-on can't deliver what was promised but cos of the limitations of the camera itself, or the problems are because in order to make the add-on more "affordable", MS took out an important piece of hardware that make the camera work as supposedly, something really stupid cos there is no person in the world that is going to buy an expensive add-on that works bad...
expensive add-on that works bad. And thats the point the new device got to be reliable when your playing a game or it just wont be fun or excepted as a new way of control and be collecting dust.....Now move as been tested and praised showing that it can be a new way of control in games socom 4,killzone 3 and party games it can do all type of games and the inportant part it works a treat to control
I have a theory, all of the 360 fanboys on this site can't be that blind and ignorant, I think they are all pulling a big joke on us they are all grouping together and trying to come up with thee most illogical and ignorant comment and see if we will finally call them on their B.S. well here I am calling it, you guys can stop now we're on to you; really just stop.
Oh" How quickly we forget that one of the first admissions from Sony about Move was that it uses 1 of the spu's for processing. SO folks if one of the available 6 spu's is constsntly in use for the Move controller then that up to 17% of the ps3's spu power being used Why do you all forget and never listen...The Move tech guy also says that they try and minimize the cpeu usage not that the move doesn't use any of the ps3's cpu. And how can we forget that the move is tied to the ps eye for its 3D motion tracking and the ps eye is the moves weak spot games that use it for any of the things that kinect can do like track your legs will be just as laggy if not more.
Dude, it uses 1 SPU as it obviously needs to do its calculating somewhere but it dosnt use that SPU to 100% of its calculating abilites - i think the figure quoted was 10 - 15% of one SPU.
In contrast Kinect uses 20% of the TOTAL CPU resources.
Yeah. When Microsoft pulled the CPU out of Natal/Kinect, they made it sound like it would not be a big deal. But developers know differently. They know that Kinect will have a major impact on the available resources of the game system.
Don't take my word for it. Just look at the Kinect games and the Kinect tech demos. They're all painfully simple.