PS3 motion games only need one wand News

So I won't have to work a second job?

"Entry barrier must be "as low as possible" "

"people have to have the PlayStation Eye camera as well"

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Well yeah, that is kinda how the tech works. I'm sure they'll do a bundle with the Eye for people who don't own one.

How much is this thing going to cost me? I don't have a PSEye.
Also, the wand is completely useless without good software.

Are you asking us? It hasn't been announced, no idea.

I was kinda hoping for two wands so that I could paint them glow in the dark green, put some happy hardcore on and relive the parts of the 1990s that I forgot ;)

if there are no games for the wand I am sure there are other things one can do with it...

realistically how expensive can the wands be? the ones in the E3 demo were literally sticks with balls on the end. At most its an IR light source which is dirt cheap.

The only reason i can see the wands being more than £5 is if the have controller functions built in, joysticks, buttons and maybe rumble.

@ Seoh
'the ones in the E3 demo were literally sticks with balls on the end. At most its an IR light source which is dirt cheap. '

I'm assuming they have tilt-sensors built into them as well (much like the Wiimote).

So what they're saying is to ignore all of what they showed, because they'll be selling each bit seperately. In other words, it's a Wii remote which will be used for simple mini-game style applications, and nobody will bother to develop these 'amazing' games that use both wands and the camera because a huge percentage of users wont have all required parts.

Sounds awesome.

They could make an air traffic control game where you wave in the planes...
or a music conductor game..
or a baton twirling simulator...
or a 90s rave simulator.
That's about it.

"We will also introduce options for if you happen to have more than one controller available. Experiences will be enhanced if you purchase a second."

I know Nintendo get stick for the Wii being a bit gimmicky, but at least they pushed the multiplayer experience from day one. This sounds half-hearted. Sony's PS3 experiences seem to have frightened their ambition out of them.

You realise that all of the skeleton demos they had required two wands per player. Without 2, the wand system was unable to track both hands and may as well have been a wiimote. The good thing was that the wand system could track consistently. Natal tracks limbs but has trouble in dark situations and doesn't have object recognition.

Either way I think Nintendo are now seriously questioning why they didn't opt for a HD system with the Wii. I'm expecting Wii HD to be announced sooner rather than later after hardware sales plummet.

I think we're going down the wrong path with all this wands and camera stuff. Bring back and enhance virtual reality.

I want to be in a harness, walking on a giant trackball, with 3d goggles on, but enough of my sex life - bring back VR!

They're wireless devices with a gyro and a multi-color led, analog buttons (I recon a trigger, an analog stick, and four face buttons that can double as d-pad maybe, or maybe have both), a home button, start and select, and vibration. So that said, they don't sound like they'll be a lot cheaper than the DS3 - the only thing they can have less of is accellerometers (PS Eye will take that), but then the DS3 doesn't have a gyro, and one less analog stick.

At least, that's what I think right now.

I kind thought you'd get two... oh well. Bring on Samba De Amigo for the PS3!! No, really, bring it on, please.

My main concern is that we haven't had any games announced for this yet, let alone seen anything or had anything playable and the launch is only 6 months away. A games system is only as good as the games on it.

How hard would it be for those light "thingies" to be something you attached to the top of a DS3 or Sixaxis on the little USB port they have?
They could still let you buy a wand controller, but at least have something a lot cheaper that they could bundle with games and that would work with the controllers you already have. Only reason I can think of for this being impossible is if, like Seoh said, the wands had some functions built-in that a current DS3 doesn't.
I mean, it was always a bit of a joke (OK, a complete joke), but the PS3 has had motion control in it from the start. If I were making something to take advantage of it now I'd iterate and evolve what is already in the hands of millions, but that's just me...

As long as we see a HD Tiger Woods i dont care, You also know Konami will make a wii style control option on PES2011 lol

I'd love to make a cheap, crass wand joke but I've got a cold. Bugger.

"Entry barrier must be "as low as possible"."
Though with a bored and dirty mind, that is a cheap, crass wand joke.

Hmm..I'm not sure how one wand will work for most hardcore style games.

I suppose it could be ok if you have a standard pad in your other hand ..but that will be a bit unbalanced.

I don't like the idea of controlling movement with the wands analogue stick at the same time you wave it around.

Going to get that weird Eye Pet game for one of the kids for Xmas, so at least thats part of the deal already purchased before it comes out (thats if it comes out in the spring).

so motion controller will be just 4 players and only 2 if its a game that needs 2 wands per person?

They have to put an analogue stick in the wand ,thats all I will say .If not ,it will be a Natal-like failure.

I dunno.. i can see it being better than natal.. but then it's not getting as much "over" (imho) hype as natal is getting in the media - so it may not do as well (despite looking a damned site more usable/better/accurate/speedy).

but the press seem to be firmly sucking msoft cock on this one.

"Eurogamer: Do you think you're close to the final design for it now?
Shuhei Yoshida: Yeah I think so. Ha ha. We have to finish sooner than later."

If the wand(s) are planning to launch early next year, devs are going to have to have their software in pretty much a final build state roughly 2 months before that. The final config of the hardware is something that's going to impact game design. If I design my game with the expectation that both wands have a trigger, and the final build has only one (on none) . . . that's not something that I just re-assign. That changes the nature of the game. I'm hoping they have the final design by TGS, otherwise I just don't see how any software (other than sloppy "weekend-coding" crap) is going to be available for it.

"we are approaching the launch by making sure that all games that we create can be played with one controller and the camera. We will also introduce options for if you happen to have more than one controller available. Experiences will be enhanced if you purchase a second."
Big, big question mark about this. I was under the impression that a bulk of the wand "magic" came from calculating the relative positions of the 2 wands, that this spatial relationship between the two was essential to the creation of 3d space. Will I still have the impact on 3d space with only one wand, or is a single wand essentially a virtual mouse?
If it IS limitied in how in creates space with only one wand (and I may well be wrong), then this is a major problem. I can't see too many designs for a game that must be fully playable as essentially a "point and click" game that has enhanced 3d spacial manipulation as nothing more than an added effect. That bow demo at E3 would have to be something that isn't essential to the game if it requires 2 wands . . . meaning that developers can't focus on a 1st-person bow game (it would basically be a lightgun game, move your curson onto the target then press button). The bow sections would have to be a "bonus" . . . meaning as a developer who's under a major time crunch to get the game finished by a deadline (launch) I have to necessarily treat things like this as "non-critical", meaning if anything is getting short-changed or cut its this.
You don't promote the equipment by highlighting the minimum it can do. If one wand is a mouse, then big deal -- there are plenty of games that control like that already. I could probably control it with a DualShock. They need all the launch software to display why getting the wands gives you something you can't get with a regular controller, and do it as strongly as possible.

ho Ho HO! Wasn't it the 360 that was being sold as a machine that you had to keep dipping into your pocket for all it's add on accessories? Now you have the be all and end all machine where it sounds like from what people are saying that you will need 2 wands/battons/fairy sticks per player AND a PS3 camera. Where as Natal will be the only peripheral required to have four players simultaneously tracked on the 360...Who's laughing now???

Busboy - there's no reason that there needs to be two wands in order to move in 3 dimensional space. Since the size of the ball at the end of the wand is known to the PS3, the position in 3D space can be calculated by the size of the ball as it appears to the Eye Toy. Bows will be tricky to do with just one controller; to control it you need to know the position of both hands relative to each other, but it's a slightly disengenuous example, since it's one of very few weapons where knowing the position of each hand independently IS essential. Guns? No. Swords? Nope.

And also Final design doesn't necessarily mean design of features - they could just be pissing about with the asthetics / ergonomics of the thing.

@EvilBob:

"Since the size of the ball at the end of the wand is known to the PS3, the position in 3D space can be calculated by the size of the ball as it appears to the Eye Toy."

Then I was wrong and color me impressed -- I didn't recognize that the level of depth fidelity demonstrated was just based off the camera reading such tinyvariations in the ball diameter.
Granted bows are a unique example. That tech demo (which did look pretty cool) was the first thing that popped into my head when I thought of only one wand.

"And also Final design doesn't necessarily mean design of features - they could just be pissing about with the asthetics / ergonomics of the thing."

Certainly true, but in reflecting on this I came back to the question of controller inputs. How many buttons/triggers could you put on a wand reasonably? If the game software has to assume you have only one wand, then the game can't require more than would be present on that one wand, which seems to me to mean any controller inputs on the second wand wouldn't be utilized.
It seems like there's very few actual buttons you could actually integrate into the hardware. I'm guessing the practical limit would be 5 (one for each finger, since if you're using your fingers to hold the wand having them jump from button to button would be difficult), but it terms of "best practices" it seems like they would be more in the range of 3. Without being able to rely on another 3 on the 2nd wand . . . that might prove restrictive in terms of game complexity and by extension game design.
Proof will be in the software, and it seems like we'll start geting some definitive answers in just a few months.