CRank: 5Score: 32540

E3 Prediction: Natal To "Borrow" Subcontroller From Move

Thinking about how E3 will play out, I've got a hunch. When you start digging into Natal, or whatever it's soon to be called, the major problem with the vaunted controller-less controller is just that. No buttons.

My prediction is that at E3, Microsoft will introduce a similar buttoned one-handed controller, or a set of controllers to remedy the issue. I'm not sure if it will include any motion tracking the way Sony's Move wand does, but I can't see Natal going very far without buttons. However, instead of assuming Microsoft is filled with fools and it is written by the gods that Microsoft can never do anything right, I'm going with Microsoft biting the inappropriate appropriations bullet and stomaching whatever sniping the fanboys have for the theft.

Tomdc4870d ago

if thats the case move and natal will be so similar specially with that fighting game footage where hip hop gamer wasn't using controllers, showing games can function with PS eye like they will with natal

sxpacks4870d ago

I don't think so. They've been tooting their No controller horn for a long time now.

If they do demo something, it would be the object scanning thing that they have been showing in their trailer

-Alpha4870d ago

This is exactly what I was thinking, the same exact damn thing.

It's interesting to note that maybe Move can work WITH Natal! Since Natal scans real life objects. I doubt it's that precise but it'd be funny as hell if it happens.

Odion4870d ago

Except that it would really be borrowing from Nintendo, since the whole motion stick and Nunchuk was theirs far before it was Sony's

thor4870d ago

It's funny to see them fight it out over overpriced peripherals that don't quite work right, whilst Nintendo is still raking in the $$$$$. If they think they're going to garner anywhere near the same success as the Wii, they've got another think coming.


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.

Michiel198937m 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_Sakai21m 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 21m 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

Eonjay27m 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_Sakai22m 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.

Eonjay7m ago

You are correct. As I said below Bungie is their to teach their teams how to build lasting multiplayer experiences. Even if their games never had any MtX (spoiler: they will) this would still lead to higher profits because of this thing called PSPlus.

cammers199519m 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 7m ago
blackblades1d 5h 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.

Eonjay11m ago

It was to teach their teams how to build multiplayer experiences that focused on increasing the longevity of engagement. It turns out you don't really need to go overboard with monetization. All you have to do is get gamers to keep coming back.

The longevity part is the crux here because even though Sony makes top tier games, they are mostly one and done experiences (that don't require PS Plus to enjoy).

So listening to what he is actually saying and viewing the whole picture, basically all they want to do is make their own multiplayer games that can pull people into PSPlus so the are less dependant on 3rd party to drive their subscptions. That's the biggest prize. Of course we need to be vocal and make sure that they don't get carried away with monetization but anyone who is honestly listening to him and using critical thinkingncan see that this is about replacing 3rd party dependence with 1 party content and driving subs.

1d 4h ago