CRank: 5Score: 32540

Natal: Flagrant Inaccuracies

Posted on an article about the PSN Eye Kung-Fu game:

"True it's not 3D mocap
but with this tech and the PSMove it can fully be just that.

The point I was making was that Natal claimed that placing the player into the game was not possible on any other system. Yet here it is on the PS3 before we have yet to see it done on Natal... other than the faked marketing vid."

Yeah, and the PS3 "Only Does Everything". Way to go with the double standard. No matter what Microsoft over-promises about their tech, Sony has already done the worst possible over-promise right there. Unless... you know... you took it with a grain of salt like any other rational person would...

You're not getting it. This is NOTHING like Natal. Not even close. To say this is "doing it before Natal" is an insult to the collective intelligence of gamers everywhere. This is like a kid asking for a Wii and their parents bringing home one of those knock-off, battery-powered plug-and-play games from China.

This tech in the Kung-fu game merely subtracts the background and extracts a 2D image of the player, then does some pretty lite analysis to determine poses and moves moving on a 2D plane, much the say way you would do DSP on a voice to extract words. What it does with that image is quite impressive... but not anything better than what's already been done with EyeToy and 360 games like In The Movies, also with the same 2D camera.

Natal is a 3D infrared camera that can natively detect depth. If it were a display technology instead of an input technology, it would be "holographic". If you've seen Minority Report, it's like the protagonist's home videos. The Move wand can only do 3D position because the size of the bulb on the wand is a known value. That's still a single point in space. On the other hand, Natal can generate an entire array these points in space, like a tessellated (wrinkled, draped) sheet covering the scene.

Move... which in MY personal opinion has much better gaming applications than Natal thanks to having an actual controller component... STILL does not natively sense depth the way Natal does. I'm more interested in and excited for the Move, but I can't stomach the flagrant inaccuracy with which Natal has been portrayed in these articles.

Watch this video from 1:17 and tell me if the Eye can do that: http://www.gametrailers.com...

madmonkey04878d ago

Ther was an add on that did the exact same thing as natal on the SNES. its not as good as MS make out.

i watched your vid, and yep it is still pretty much the same as playstation eye

edgeofblade4878d ago


So, the PS Eye can take a 3D image of the room it's in?

Godmars2904878d ago

You do know that the "Kung-fu" at one point was going to be multiplatform, right? Its a 3rd party game that Sony just happened to get exclusively. Then again, MS might have rejected it because its too "primitive" in terms of what Natal fully has to offer.

Not that there's been anything offered in regards to what natal can do as far as extracting and replacing backgrounds. That much about just hasn't been shown.

edgeofblade4878d ago

Actually... the 360 would be able to do this with the webcam they already have. But I agree: Microsoft probably told them no because it would muddy the perception of Natal with the public.

Natal doesn't need to extract and replace background images from a 2D image. It does one better. Look at that vid and look at where the body is shown as red against a white background. It's reading in your body positions from a 3D infrared camera. Anything that's not your body is excluded from the process of mapping your body to the in-game character.

This is NOTHING like Natal. The difference between Eye and Natal is like the difference between a smart 2D TV and a holographic projector from Star Wars.

I'll say it once again. I think Move has better applications for gaming, but ultimately Natal is a cooler, more advanced technology. Not necessarily better... either one.

Godmars2904878d ago

Sorry, but where is the proof that backs up that statement? All that's truly been shown of Natal is a prerendered gamefield with the transparent and generic outline of a game character. Not even an XBL avatar muchless the silhouette of someone actually using it at the time.

I mean, you can't even bring up evidence that the original Xbox video camera is capable of translating those effects because as far as I'm aware there was never a video editor muchless a games made for it. Unlike the PSeye.

Move is nothing more than an add-on that gives the PSeye a precise tracking option as well as depth. That's what a game like Kung-fu LIVE prove. That it was named Kung-fu *LIVE* suggests that it was made with Natal in mind.

crapgamer4878d ago

Natal is one of a kind. It's new tech, not only is it the biggest gaming technology this year, but Microsoft has said it's the biggest computer technology coming this year. Voice commands, scan items into it, it learns from you. It's amazing. I am looking forward to it. I am happy that MS didn't go with a Wii Knock off, because I wouldn't have bought something like that. I am glad they went with something more. I mean what started out as the best hard core gaming console has now turned into a great media device as well and this adds to that. I cant wait.

thor4878d ago

Voice commands, scanning items, and "learning" is anything BUT new technology. Mobile phones 10 years ago had voice activation. Ever heard of barcodes? And the ability for a computer to learn is PURELY a software thing - and bearing in mind that no computer has come close to passing the turing test as of yet, I severly doubt that any Natal game will make any sort of breakthrough.

The only "new tech" Natal has is depth perception, which allows it to be a more accurate PSEye. Quite a bit more accurate, but that's all it is and you've been misled by faked demonstrations I'm afraid.

Trroy4878d ago

Actually, the Move does detect depth very accurately -- that's what the glowy ball is for.

In a sense, Natal detects a "depth field" -- it knows that one part of an incoming image is closer or further away from the camera than another, whereas the Move only detects a "depth point". The Move's depth accuracy is considerably more refined, but it is just that single point.

The real question for MS is... can that field of depth information be utilized for interesting gaming purposes, or is it just additional info, without any real purpose?

Jack Klugman4878d ago

great post and its a great start at countering some of the inaccuracies that are floating around.. move is faking its depth of field and i would hardly call it refined.

Show all comments (11)

Jim Ryan: $3.6B Bungie Deal "Can Give Us Way More" Than $69B Activision Buyout

The PlayStation brand CEO, Jim Ryan, said that the Bungie deal gives them way more value than the Activision acquisition.

-Foxtrot1d 5h ago

Urm. Yeah if it was literally just Destiny vs Call of Duty but Activision is made up of a fair few other games especially on the Blizzard side of things

Then you have Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, two ex PlayStation mascots from the old days

I feel this is just standard bullshit PR talk since the UK approved the Activision deal

If Destiny was enough then why pursue so many GaaS games…

Nitrowolf21d 3h ago (Edited 1d 3h ago )

"If Destiny was enough then why pursue so many GaaS games…"

I mean, that's what he's getting at when he says the Bungie deal can give them more than spending $69b. It was never just about Destiny with it, they brought them in to help build their GAAS, and if that ends up working for them, while knowing not all will succeed, then yeah they could get more in the end.

It's def. Pr and a lot of ifs, and personally I feel they are overvaluing what Bungie can deliver, but all they need is one "Fortnite" "COD" mega gaas to be successful and that 3.6B would end up being pennies in the grand picture.

But again, I think they're putting way to much faith in Bungie. I mean, look at what's been going on with their own game this season, tons are upset over it, and this has been going on even before they were bought. That's who they want leading their GAAS? Remember, it's rumored that they're the reason that Faction 2 is delayed since it couldn't apparently work as a GAAS.

-Foxtrot1d 3h ago

“and if that ends up working for them, while knowing not all will succeed, then yeah they could get more in the end”

Well hopefully they fail spectacularly or else PlayStation will forever be changed

Once they get a taste of that kind of money then there’s no going back and it will just get worse slowly over time.

Einhander19721d ago

They can make more than one type of game... Games are expensive, the multiplayer games can help fund the single player games.

It's not one or the other, and Sony has been telling you this since the start, they still plan to keep making single player games.

And hoping Sony fails spectacularly is basically hoping that the PlayStation brand fails, because with Microsoft doing what they are doing that's what you're going to get.

blackblades23h ago

As what Ein said, the interview was last year. As someone else said there's like over 28 games in development at that time. 10 suppose to be live service and those 10 suppose to be spreaded out over the years. Those 10 suppose to be different genre and some based on already existing IP last of us, horizon are 2 of them. Read the full interview people would get what he is talking about. One point he made was that they will help boost single player games.

Michiel198926m ago

Destiny was supposed to be their mega gaas success, it's why they left MS (and for some reason sided with activision). This is just straight up bs, there's no way that bungie will ever make even close to anything that actibliz does. also a bit dumb of Ryan to say that Bungie, a single studio, will go head to head against a company made up of 20 studios, 15 highly regarded ips and even their own publishing branch, it's just not happening.

Jin_Sakai10m ago

“I mean, look at what's been going on with their own game this season, tons are upset over it“

People get upset with most live service multiplayer games because you can never please everyone. At least that’s the way I’ve seen it on the internet.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 10m ago
Vengeance113817h ago

Crash and Spyro barely sell anymore and aren't enough to move any kind of needle. I'd barely count them as having any kind of impact at all.

-Foxtrot16h ago(Edited 16h ago)

My point is it’s still something

If your main meaty part of the deal is COD and Blizzard games then Crash and Spyro are nice little bonuses

Eonjay16m ago

I think he means quite literally it gives them ,Sony, more to work with than less (like actual money). In the same Interview he goes on To explain that Spending 69B is a means to an end for Microsoft to pursue its goals with Subscription. However, the 4B Bungie purchase allows them to build their own content without spending untold billions acquiring everything.

He further explains that they are only acquiring where the see they have a need. So, while they are good on the single player front, they had to make a purchase that would allow them to build up their multiplayer and live service front.

You may also be interested to know that the title doesn't reflect the exact context that Jim is speaking in.

Jin_Sakai12m ago

I’m sure the Bungie buyout was to give their first party studios multiplayer expertise which is exactly why Factions got put on the back burner. And Microsoft will probably run Activision in the ground anyhow. They can’t even properly run the studios they have now.

cammers19959m ago

The thing about crash and Spyro is that Microsoft doesn't seem to make platformers anymore. Crash and Spyro will likely sit dead ips once that deal finishes.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 9m ago
blackblades1d 4h ago

Heres the full interview, this site needs to change. Start posting the full thing not one thing from it making 10 different topic


-Foxtrot1d 4h ago

Yeah but you can’t just link a Reddit post on here…it has to be an article

XiNatsuDragnel1d 4h ago (Edited 1d 4h ago )

Dude I get it man but accept Activision was bigger purchase even though it shouldn't have happened regardless but modern gaming these days it's full of cheerleaders imo.

CappyBlack1d 4h ago (Edited 1d 4h ago )

Probably not, but, even so, that would only be because they have a bunch of planned GaaS titles coming down the pipeline, and Bungie's purchase literally was just for them to help direct all the studios in how to best monetize the releases.