I think your WOT has proven my point that "hardcore" and "casual" gamer labels are bogus.
Bogus in what way? Personally i would say that it is more of a way to describe a type of audience in general. Even Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony uses phrases like "casual" and "hardcore"
Here is an interview with the president of Nintendo of America (Reggie Fils-Aime), and one of the first thing that he mentions in that interview is actually "hardcore":
Personally i dont think that there is anything negative in the "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" definitions. I would say that it is just a description that describes what type of gamer it is in general.
When it comes to describing what a "casual game" and a "hardcore game" is, this might be more difficult, at least in my opinion. But i guess that games that are aimed more at the so-called "casual gamers" will in many cases be described as "casual games", while games that are aimed more at the so-called "hardcore gamers" will in many cases be described as "hardcore games".
But personally i dont think that it really matters if a game is being described as a "casual game" or as "hardcore game", i think what matters the most is that the game is fun to play I just wanted to mention what i think about when i see people mentions "casual games" and "hardcore games" and this is this the way that i would describe "casual games/gamers" and "hardcore games/gamers"
By the way, just a comment regarding what i said earlier about "the gameplay mechanics usually are simple", i was then mostly thinking about gameplay in newer games, because controllers have gotten more buttons on them now compared to how the controllers were for for example 20 years ago. If you make a game today that uses for example 3-4 buttons, this is more simple gameplay mechanics compared to other games that uses for example 10-12 buttons
Maybe my earlier explanations werent that good earlier, sorry, but i just tried to explain that there are different type of gamers. Some people play much, some people doesnt play that much. Some people really likes for example more deeper adventure games, some people dont like these types of games, but likes simpler games instead.
Since there are different types of gamers, descriptions like "causal gamers" and "hardcore gamers" have been made to make it more easier to describe what types of gamers we are talking about, at least in my opinion. But there is not always a key answer to what a "casual gamer" and a "hardcore gamer" is, but it is more a genereal description. There are different types of gamers, there is nothing wrong with that
In what way is it falsely attemps to split gamers into two groups when there excist different types of gamers? How would you describe the different type of gamers? I dont think that there is anything negative to have a description for a certain type of gamer when there excist different types of gamers.
I would say there is a spectrum of gamers that can't be cleanly divided into groups.
When you say "divided into groups", to me this sounds like you mean this in a negative way? Everyone is concidered as a gamer, i agree to that. I am just saying that "causal gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is a way to describe a certain type of gamer. To me, this is pretty much exactly the same as saying "adventure game fan" to a gamer that really likes adventure games or a "first person shooter fan" to a gamer that really likes first person shooter games. The only difference is that for example "adventure game fan" is more of a direct description, while "hardcore gamer" is more of a general description.
It is just the same with for example cars. Every car is "a car" in the wide spectrum, but you have different types of cars, like for example SUV. A SUV is just a way to describe which type of car it is.
Maybe we have different views on this, and i respect that fully, but personally i look at "causal gamers" and "hardcore gamers" only as simple descriptions to describe what type of gamer it is. No gamer is "worth less" (or what i shall say) if their type of gaming could defined as "this" or "that". I dont see why there should be anything negative in this. Is it negative to call a type of car a SUV instead of calling it "a car"? I am just wondering why you think these descriptions are something negative, at least this is how i understand what you mean, that you think that it is something negative to it. But if i missunderstood what you ment, then please correct me
I dont know if everyone has the same opinions about what a "casual gamer" and a "hardcore gamer" is, but these are my opinions about it at least and i mean nothing negative about it, i just mean it as simple descriptions to describe what kind of playing pattern and what types of games a person has.
I dont know if that link was ment to be referring to anything that i have said/written in this thread, but what i have been saying about "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers" has nothing to do with placing people in booths just to underline that. I have just mentioned that "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers" is in my opinion just simple ways to describe what types of gamers they are. I have ment nothing negative about that, everyone is concidered as gamers no matter if they play 5 minutes each week or 50 hours each week. Putting people in booth is something that i strongly dislike, so i just had to point out what i ment.
I know what you are trying to get at, but I don't think the labels you are using really fit.
Hardcore generally means "really into it" casual means you just play once in a while and don't really care. However, there are people who are "really into" any kind of game, including the ones on the wii.
I know what you are trying to get at, but I don't think the labels you are using really fit. Hardcore generally means "really into it" casual means you just play once in a while and don't really care. However, there are people who are "really into" any kind of game, including the ones on the wii.
There are probably people that spend more time playing "Farmville" than most "hardcore" gamers spend playing their PS3 or XBox360.
I know what you are trying to get at, but I don't think the labels you are using really fit. Hardcore generally means "really into it" casual means you just play once in a while and don't really care. However, there are people who are "really into" any kind of game, including the ones on the wii.
Are you referring to what i said? If yes, in what way doesnt the labels fit? The way you describe hardcore and casual is pretty much the exact same way that i described it A person that is "really into" any kind of game is something that i would describe as a hardcore gamer because "any kind of game" includes every game genre out there. A typical "hardcore gamer" inst neccessarily only interested in playing shooting games and/or adventure games, he/she could be interested in playing any types of games, at last in my opinion.
A "hardcore gamer" is someone who usually are more interested in games in general, or that is "really into it" as you mentioned, and that usually also plays more "deeper/advanced" games. While a "casual gamer" is someone who usually are less interested in games in general, or that "don't really care" as you mentioned, and that usually doesnt have that high interested in playing more "deeper/advanced" games. I think that it is important to mention that "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is more of a general descripion of gamers.
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel
There are probably people that spend more time playing "Farmville" than most "hardcore" gamers spend playing their PS3 or XBox360.
Indeed. Such a player might be concidered as a "hardcore Farmville player", at least in my opinion
I think that it is important to mention that the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" descriptions are more a basic description of gaming audiences in general and not a description that necessarily describes each person/gamer individually.
There are always some exceptions, for example, if a person only plays games for maybe 2 hours each week, but this person really likes to play more "deeper/advanced" games, is this person a casual gamer or a hardcore gamer then? He/she doesnt play often like the general "casual gamer" does, but he/she are interested in playing more "deeper/advanced" games like the general "hardcore gamer" does. In some case cases it isnt really a clear cut way to describe a gamer, at least in my opinion. That is why i think it is important to mention that a "casual gamer" and a "hardcore gamer" is more of a basic and general description of a wider range of audience.
I dont think that it really matters if a gamer is described as a "casual gamer" or as a "hardcore gamer", what matters the most to me is that people are having fun playing games I respect your opinion about using the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" description, but i am just curious about why you think the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" descriptions are something negative?
If a person basically only makes for example country-western music, wouldnt you describe this person as a "country-western artist", and if a person basically only makes hip-hop music, wouldnt you describe this person as a "hip-hop artist", and a person that basically only makes pop-music as a "pop artist"? Is describing a musican as for example "country-western artist" putting people in booths? Because technically you could just describe all musicans as "musicans". But using descriptions like "country-western artist" describes more clearly what type of musican it is. Another example is that "Star Trek fans" and "Star Wars fans" is just describing what types of "Sci-Fi" fans someone is.
When i see the description "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer", i dont see this as any different than using "country-western artist" and "hip-hop" artist when it comes to musicans. A country-western artist might have been featured in one hip-hop song, but if this country-western artist basically only makes country-western music, then i think that it is correct to describe him as a country-western artist in general.
I am just curious why you think that the "causal gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" descriptions are something negative. I cant really see why there would be anything negative to this, even Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony uses this descriptions towards their own consumers. I know that you said that you think using these description is placing people in booths, but would that also mean that calling a musican for example a "country-western artist" is splitting the musicans and placing them in booths as well? If you dont think so, then what is the difference between these 2 things?
I am sorry for writing long posts, but i just feel that i need to write this much to get my points out as clearly as possible.
I think the descriptions are negative in the sense that they are commonly associated with "hardcore" gamers using the terms to dump on genres they don't appreciate or consoles they don't own.
Ok, i understand what you mean. There are indeed people who talk bad things about game genres and/or other consoles that they dont like as you say, and these people might go under the description "hardcore gamers" because they play relatively much and they usually play games that has a more "deeper" experience. So i can see why you have this perception of what a "hardcore gamer" is. But i can assure you that this is not the way that everyone thinks of and this is not what everyone mean when they talk about a "hardcore gamer"
After my personal experience and from what i have heard/read, it is not really that common that people describes "hardcore gamers" as a negative thing, at least i dont understand it as that anything negative stuff is said about it. Some people might mean it in a negative way, but personally i cant recall to have seen that this is something common.
After my experience, when many people uses the term "hardcore gamer" and "causal gamer", then they are only using a basic description of a group of gamers that describes they way that they usually play in general, and they mean nothing negative things at all when they talk about "casual gamer" and/or" "hardcore gamer". This is at least the way that i mean when i talk about a "casual gamer" and a "hardcore gamer", i dont mean anything negative things about it at all.
I think this is also the way that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony also mean it when they talk about it, that they dont mean anything negative about it, but that they uses the descriptions "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" just to use a basic description to describe what type of gamer it is.
I would concider myself as a hardcore gamer because i usually play relatively much (probably at least 2-3 hours each day) and because that i also have much interest in playing games with a "deeper" experience. It is not like i go around and call myself a hardcore gamer or anything, but if i had to describe which type of gamer that i am, then i would say say that i am a hardcore gamer when it comes to choosing between "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer".
Even if i would concider myself as a hardcore gamer, this doesnt mean that i hate any game genres or consoles. There are game genres and consoles that i personally find less interesting compared to others, but i dont hate anything because of this. I am open to any game genres as long as i find the games entertaining to play. So i hope that you dont think that i am a guy that hates certain game genres and certain consoles just because i would concider myself as a hardcore gamer? Because that is definetely not the case.
But i see what you mean. But i just wanted to say that not everyone mean anything negative at all when they talk about "casual games/gamers" and "hardcore games/gamers", and i am one of those person who doesnt mean anything negative about it. So if you see me talking about "casual games/gamers" and/or "hardcore games/gamers" in the upcoming future, i can assure you that i dont mean anything negative about this at all, i will then only mean it as a basic description and i would not mean anything negative with it
And speaking about talking negative stuff about certain types of game genres and other consoles, i dont really understand why people do this. I can understand if people gets tired of so-called "shovel ware" games if a lot of these kind of games comes out, and i can understand if people have little interest in playing certain types of game genres, but i wouldnt really understand if someone hates a certain type game genre just because that it is a certain type of game genre.
I also dont really understand why people talk bad about consoles. In this generataion (PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii), i think that every console is great. I have seen a lot of negative talk about gaming stuff in this generation, and i think that is a pity I prefer to read more positive things about gaming and not negative stuff. This is one of the reasons why i like NintendoAge.com, because i havnt really seen that much negative talk about gaming at this forum.
Jeez, you sure are an apologist for the use of terms that really should never have been brought into the lexicon in the first place.
What does this mean? English isnt my first language, sorry.
I was hoping that was the case...this makes your stance in the discussion make quite a bit more sense.
I suspect that underlying negativity associated with this discussion is truly "lost in translation" for you.
Anyway, per your question, "an apologist" is someone who defends an idea or belief, and the rest of my statement is basically saying the terms should never have been used in the way that they are.
I was hoping that was the case...this makes your stance in the discussion make quite a bit more sense.
I suspect that underlying negativity associated with this discussion is truly "lost in translation" for you.
Anyway, per your question, "an apologist" is someone who defends an idea or belief, and the rest of my statement is basically saying the terms should never have been used in the way that they are.
Ok, i see, thanks for the explanation of what "an apologist is"
I dont think that i am "lost in translation" here. I am pretty sure that i have understood everything that you have written. Basically, you say that "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" are something negative, while i dont think that there is anything negative about this. Or is there anything that i have missed or missunderstood in this discussion?
And this doesnt really have anything to do with being an apologist at all. I am just trying to explain to you that not everyone means anything negative when they say "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer". That was basically all i tried to do.
If you dont want to take any of my points into concideration and if you want to think that "causal gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is a negative thing, that is fine, i respect that, but i hope at least that you now know that "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is not something that everyone would concider as a negative thing and that some people uses these terms only as a simple description and nothing else.
I guess I don't understand why you're defending the terms usage so strongly.
I suspect if we polled the users of this site, they would say that the terms carry a predominantly negative connotation. They are typically used in such a way that, as a gamer that cares about gaming, it's demeaning to be considered a "casual" gamer and masculine/macho/otherwise-positive to be considered a "hardcore" gamer. You don't have to read many forums to see people chide each other about the games they do, or don't, play.
Overall, the terms, the overly simplistic categorization, and the underlying marketing bring out an undeniable, readily-visible negativity.
Ok, i see, i will try to explain. The reason for why i am defending it, or rather trying to explain my opinion about using these terms, is because i sometimes (although rarely) might use the temrs "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer". If i read that someone who say that using these terms is concidered as talking bad things about certain game genres and/or consoles, i would like to explain what i mean with these terms so people dont think that i talk about things about stuff. I dont want people to think that i talk about things about stuff when this isnt my intention at all.
About running a poll on this site, the outcome of that poll might have been the way that you say indeed. But if there are 100 people, and 99 of these people think that it is something negative, and i was the only one who didnt think that it was a negative thing, i would respect all the other peoples opinion, but i would still have had my same opinions about "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer"
When you say "typically used in such way", then i cant really say anything against this because i dont know what experience you have with this. I can only speak out from my own personal experience with this, and my personal experience with this is that it isnt typically used in this way. I do however recognize the description that you say, but from my experience, this is not typical from what i have read/heard. I guess that we have different experiences when it comes to what people means with "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer".
-
You might say that it is an overly simpstic categorization indeed, i agree, but simplistic isnt always something negative, at least in my opinion And i wouldnt say that there is any undeniable, readily-visible negativity to it, at least in my opinion. This might be the case when some persons uses these terms though, that is true, but not always. I would guess that for example Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony uses these terms because they are simple, so they dont have to explain too much about what types of gamers that they mean, so it is easier to just devide it into "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" instead, i think so at least
But if you dont agree with what i say, i respect that. But if you see me using the terms "casual gamer" and/or "hardcore gamer" in the upcoming future, i hope that you dont think that i mean anything negative about this
I hope that what i have written in this thread hasnt been understood as me being rude or anything like that because i have always tried to write in a friendly way. I fully respect if someone else as a different opinion than what i have. I just wanted to mention that i didnt mean to be rude at all even if i disagreed on something.
i actually lost this conversation for a while because i forgot to subscribe to it but I think I understand where both are coming from.. And man did I open a can of worms.. I think What jajaja is saying is exactly what i meant in the first place..
There are hardcore games and casual games:
Hardcore Game - being one that is more in depth, usually will take longer to play, can be harder for a general gamer to understand all of the nuances, can contain long or epic story lines. May require the gamer to actually learn skills beyond that of just simple motor skills.
Examples of games types (Role Playing Games, First Person Shooters, Racing Simulators, Adventure Games)
Casual Game - being one that is simple to learn, can be played for a few minutes at a time, usually made to appeal to general audiences.. The Types of games that made Arcades BIG..
Examples of games (Arcade Games, Puzzle Games, Level based games, ect...)
This is not to say that games cannot span from casual to hardcore types but to me it rarely happens. I would say the game that closest describes a crossover would be Super Mario World which Is level based casual gaming but has a lengthy story behind it.. It is a sliding scale... but to categorize it would be is it more this or that...
Then if you take the gamer into context -
A Casual Gamer - would be someone who only plays for a few minutes at a time, wants a quick fun game that doesn't take to much time to learn. fun and engaging. A gamer of this type would not really enjoy having to figure out all the nuances of a game and therefore would not stick with it. they probably would not like many if any hardcore style games as they take too long or are too hard to be good at quickly.
A Hardcore Gamer - Would be someone who plays a lot and strives to perfect their gaming skills.
A Hardcore gamer could love casual games but more than likely a casual gamer would not love hardcore games. From the sound of it Archangel would be a hardcore gamer who likes games from the casual to hardcore style games.
Myself I would say I am a casual gamer with the exception of racing simulators for which I am hardcore. I no longer can find myself holding attention long enough to finish a Zelda or Metroid like I did in the past. I even have trouble sticking with with Mario Galaxy..
This is partially why I tend to use my Wii more as more of the games are geared toward the Casual Gamer (what Nintendo has always been good at) I have about 30-40 games for the Wii and maybe 10 for my PS3.. The PS3 just doesn't have that ease of use factor... Or ever really the fun factor...
Hardcore in the FPS came more from the PC gaming world. as they of course have this high horse stance that NO console can every be as good as a PC for gaming.. problem is PC gaming has only really consisted of FPS style games or very, very casual style games like Farmville.. there is nothing really like a console for variety.
Now if someone would just develop a FPS for the Wii that incorporates the Zapper, Motion+, and the balance Board for motion control that would be killer...
Hardcore Game - being one that is more in depth, usually will take longer to play, can be harder for a general gamer to understand all of the nuances, can contain long or epic story lines. May require the gamer to actually learn skills beyond that of just simple motor skills.
Examples of games types (Role Playing Games, First Person Shooters, Racing Simulators, Adventure Games)
Casual Game - being one that is simple to learn, can be played for a few minutes at a time, usually made to appeal to general audiences.. The Types of games that made Arcades BIG..
Examples of games (Arcade Games, Puzzle Games, Level based games, ect...)
This is about right. I would be a casual gamer then, with a little bit of hc. I have a Wii and it's my only system. I have 14 legit games for it right now and pretty much everything I want on the VC and WiiWare (thank you soft-mod). I had a 360 at one point, and I'll have one again somewhere down the line, but all I played on it was Xbox Live Arcade games (Lumines, Rez, Pac-Man Championship Edition, and so on). There's room for everyone on the gaming scale, as the Wii has shown this generation, and so much so that Microsoft and Sony are coming out with their own motion controls, but that's another discussion for another time
Yea I saw an article on the PS3 Motion controller and i am waiting for a Nintendo Lawsuit.. It is basically the same as the WiiMote with motion + but it is tracked by the PS Eye (they have finally found a real use for that thing) rather than an infra-red sensor bar.
I respect that you have your own opinion of what these terms mean to you...just recognize that they mean something different to most people.
I am not sure if most people think that there is something negative by using the "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer", i am under the impression that most people dont think that there is anything negative about it, but that is just after my experience, i dont really know what most people in general thinks about. I think that it should have been interesting to know this But i know that some people mean that there is something negative about it at least
I didnt mean to imply that you didnt respect my opinion just in case what i wrote earlier was understood in that way, i didnt mean it anything like that. I just wanted to say that
By the way, out of curiousity, who are "most people"? Is it "most people" in general or is it "most people" at a certain forum or website etc.? If we for example as 1000 people if they think these descriptions are something negative, and 700 of these people dont think that is anything negative about it, or if these 700 people think that there is something negative aboutit, are these 700 people "most people"? Technically, these 700 people are only a fraction of the millions upon millions of gamers out there, so who are "most people"? I am just curious about this
But even if we have different opinions about if "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is something negative, i think that we have come to an agreement that people looks at these descriptions in a different way And i think that we both have gotten our points out in this discussion now Even if we dont agree on all points, i think that this might be a good thing, because i think that it would be boring if everyone had the same opinion about everything. Thanks for the discussion!
-
And just to clearify something that i wrote earlier in case i didnt write it good enough, when i said that even if 99 out of 100 people had a different opinion than me, i didnt mean to say something like "i am the only person that is correct, the 99 other persons are wrong". I just ment to say i would still have my opinion even if 99 other persons had another opinion.
I would fully respect if the other 99 persons had a different opinion than me just to underline that, but i would have thought that it would be a bit pity if the 99 other person would think that there is something negative with the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" description though, because i know that i am not the only one who sees these descriptions are something neutral/positive and not as something negative.
So i think that it would be a bit pity if many people thought that for example i ment something negative if i used the "casual gamer" and/or the "hardcore gamer" descripions because i dont mean anything negative about these descriptions at all What do you think about this, is it good or bad that people feel that "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is something negative when other people dont feel that it is anything negative?
i actually lost this conversation for a while because i forgot to subscribe to it but I think I understand where both are coming from.. And man did I open a can of worms.. I think What jajaja is saying is exactly what i meant in the first place..
There are hardcore games and casual games:
*description*
Yep, that is a good description of how i see what "casual games/gamers" and "hardcore games/gamers" are
Originally posted by: Brion Sohn
A Hardcore gamer could love casual games but more than likely a casual gamer would not love hardcore games.
Ye, i think so too, i agree
Originally posted by: Brion Sohn
From the sound of it Archangel would be a hardcore gamer who likes games from the casual to hardcore style games.
I would say that this description fits me pretty good I like to play both many casual games and hardcore games. I would never not play a game genre just because it might be "too casual" or "too hardcore", as long as i think that a game looks interesting a fun to play, then i will most likely try the game out to see if i like it
Originally posted by: Brion Sohn
This is partially why I tend to use my Wii more as more of the games are geared toward the Casual Gamer (what Nintendo has always been good at) I have about 30-40 games for the Wii and maybe 10 for my PS3.. The PS3 just doesn't have that ease of use factor... Or ever really the fun factor...
I am actually a bit the opposite When it comes to the PS3, the Xbox 360 and the Wii, i personally find the PS3 the most interesting console. I think that all three consoles are good though just to underline that and i think that all three consoles has some good content, but for me personally i find the PS3 the most interesting console for my use/taste But i think that is good that not every person prefer the exact same console because i think that it would be boring if everyon preferred the exact same things
Originally posted by: Brion Sohn
Yea I saw an article on the PS3 Motion controller and i am waiting for a Nintendo Lawsuit.. It is basically the same as the WiiMote with motion + but it is tracked by the PS Eye (they have finally found a real use for that thing) rather than an infra-red sensor bar.
Brion
I would be surprised if Nintendo sues Sony because of a similar controller scheme. I think that would be so to say the same if Sony should sue Microsoft because of Natal looks quite similar to the PS Eye. But i guess that we will have to wait and see if any lawsuits will happend
Yea I saw an article on the PS3 Motion controller and i am waiting for a Nintendo Lawsuit.. It is basically the same as the WiiMote with motion + but it is tracked by the PS Eye (they have finally found a real use for that thing) rather than an infra-red sensor bar.
Brion
I would be surprised if Nintendo sues Sony because of a similar controller scheme. I think that would be so to say the same if Sony should sue Microsoft because of Natal looks quite similar to the PS Eye. But i guess that we will have to wait and see if any lawsuits will happend
I think this depends highly on what Nintendo actually has patents on. They are very similar looking and if they use same style components in the same manner there are lots of questions.. Not to say that Sony didn't just say oh well, and bring it out knowing that they can fight about it for the next 10 years by which time it will all be changed (I have seen this all the time with electronics).. The PS eye it is really just a USB Camera which Sony didn't develop but they developed the software to detect motion changes. The WiiMote appears to be a more direct Nintendo developed, use and design which is something that they can go after Sony with.
I think this depends highly on what Nintendo actually has patents on. They are very similar looking and if they use same style components in the same manner there are lots of questions.. Not to say that Sony didn't just say oh well, and bring it out knowing that they can fight about it for the next 10 years by which time it will all be changed (I have seen this all the time with electronics)..
Ah yes, that is true, i didnt think about patents. Come to think of it, Nintendo has been sued some times because companies means that the Wii Remote infringes with other patents. I dont think that any companies have won any of these lawsuits yet, but maybe it takes a long time to process a case like this in court? Like you said, some of these lawsuits might in some cases be fought in court over several of years.
If Nintendo wanted to sue Sony because of similar controllers, i wonder if they would have done it already because the Playstation motion controller has been known for quite some time now. I think that it was first shown at E3 2009, which was about 8-9 months ago. But maybe not all info about the Playstation motion controller is known yet, so Nintendo doesnt know if it infringes with their patents or not.
But even if there could be som patent infringments, i wonder if Nintendo would sue Sony anyway. Wouldnt such a lawsuit become publically known? And such a lawsuit isnt necessarily good PR for Nintendo i think?
Reggie Fils-Aimé was asked in the latest episode of GTTV that he didnt look at the Sony motion controller and Microsoft motion controller and he said that he wouldnt go as far as calling them as knock-offs. He mostly thinks that Sony's motion controller and Microsoft's motion controller will fall short mostly because Nintendo focus more on motion controls. The Wii Remote is after all the standard controller for the Wii, so it seems that Nintendo focus more on motion controls indeed. I am sure that both Microsoft and Sony will push their motion controls with relatively much adverticing, but will they focus just as much on motion controls as Nintendo does? It shall be interesting to see i think
But what Reggie Fils-Aimé said in that GTTV interview might not tell much if Nintendo will sue Sony or not though. Reggie Fils-Aimé is "only" the president of Nintendo of America, so i dont know how he decides when it comes to what decitions Nintendo in general does. But in that GTTV interview, it seems to me that he didnt seem to worry too much abou Sony's motion controller or Microsoft's motion controller at least.
But i guess that time will tell and we will see if Nintendo sues Sony or not
Originally posted by: Brion Sohn
The PS eye it is really just a USB Camera which Sony didn't develop but they developed the software to detect motion changes. The WiiMote appears to be a more direct Nintendo developed, use and design which is something that they can go after Sony with.
According to Wikipedia, the EyeToy camera (the first camera that was made for the Playstation 2, not "PS Eye" that is mainly made for the Playstation 3) uses "computer vision" and "Gesture recognition" technoligies. Are these technoligies used often i USB cameras? I have very little knowledge about USB cameras in general, so i am just wondering about it Wikipedia also mentions that EyeToy is developed by Sony, but manufactured by Logitech and that newer EyeToy cameras are manufactured by Namtai.
But ye, Sony wasnt the first to develope USB cameras while Nintendo has more direct developed their WiiMote, so i think i know what you mean, and that is true Microsoft's Natal is indeed more advanced compared to "EyeToy" and "PS Eye", that is also true. I was just thinking if it was possible to take patent on something like "standing infront of the TV using a camera that you interact with like with for example playing games". In afterthought, maybe it isnt possible to take a patent like this, but i dont really know.
I don't think a lawsuit can actually be placed until they know the specs of the actual piece. hence why nothing has probably been filed YET. Though I am sure the announcement way back when put the Lawyers on the edge of their seat.
I am not sure what can be patendable.. I know that there are Mechanical Patend's that would be the Development and Production of the part (ie this cannot be copied). Then there are Use and Design Patends which are more vague and require more proof of infringement. These are the ones that take years to figure out as the technology may be similar but the use is the same and they look similar..
You cannot patend the standing in front of a to to control a game but, you can argue that doing it with a stick style controller in hand is proprietary to Nintendo.. Just as the pressure mat control is to Banda/Nintendo. Now if Sony did it all by motion capture then it might be different. Though I am sure that Sony would be paying someone else for that as well since there is probably some special effects place that has that patend.
It all gets really complex in the who developed the idea first realm..
^ With these things it's REALLY easy to make an "improvement" though and that gets you your own patent. DDR mats are very similar to the Power Pad, but they're an improvement for playing a specific style of game. Increase the resolution of your own proprietary webcam, or the desk mount, or any tiny little thing, and you can apply for an improvement.
Also Brian, you can't patent ideas, only applications.
^^ That is true, that would fall under an engineering Patend.. however the Design and Use is where the lawsuits normally stem from..
Not exactly true you can patend the way something is used that stems from an idea. Apple has patends on Voice command control of iPod products. That is a use patend so if someone develops a 3rd party voice command of an iPod without paying Apple the WILL get sued regardless of the technology involved.
Basically if Nintendo has accelerometers in the Wiimote (which they do) there is possible infringement as those accelerometers are used for the purpose of determining the speed at which the controller moves. If Sony were to use Accelerometers in the same manner (to determine movement for a game controller) which they have stated then they are in possible infringement regardless of the resolution of those pieces.
Normally use patends are very broad and hence why they take years and years to go through the courts..
Engineering patends are easy.. Oh you made a 20% higher resolution on the camera OK you're fine.. but you know there is someone that is being PAID for the initial idea of the camera in the first place..
It is a very difficult thing and you would have to be a lawyer to figure it all out of which I am not but I know the basics because I do produce products in my normal business.
There are lawyerly concerns with the Sony motion controller and there will either be a backdoor settlement or a long Court fight..
Just a side note.. Did you know that Ford and Toyota Hybrids are basically of the same design, they use different software but physically they are close.. as they were being developed separately they realized that both were using technology that was virtually the same (but not). So someone who was brilliant stepped in and came up with a deal to share information so that BOTH companies could avoid having to take each other to court over the intricacies of the systems. This doesn't happen too often though.. most wait for the other company to come out with something and then go after then to disrupt it.
Now if Nintendo is actually licensing the technology from someone else (which they may be doing for the "plus" accessory from what I read a while ago) of which we don't know then all this would be mute as they would not have any proprietary use or tech.
Comments
I think your WOT has proven my point that "hardcore" and "casual" gamer labels are bogus.
Bogus in what way? Personally i would say that it is more of a way to describe a type of audience in general. Even Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony uses phrases like "casual" and "hardcore"
Here is an interview with the president of Nintendo of America (Reggie Fils-Aime), and one of the first thing that he mentions in that interview is actually "hardcore":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWaQpCySCh0 (from 0:55)
Sony mentioned "social/casual games" and "core gamer" at a conference earlier today:
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/gdc-10-sony/62973 (from 4:00)
Microsoft seems to even have a own devition that is called "Microsoft Casual Games":
http://www.gamedev.net/columns/interviews/mscg.asp
Personally i dont think that there is anything negative in the "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" definitions. I would say that it is just a description that describes what type of gamer it is in general.
When it comes to describing what a "casual game" and a "hardcore game" is, this might be more difficult, at least in my opinion. But i guess that games that are aimed more at the so-called "casual gamers" will in many cases be described as "casual games", while games that are aimed more at the so-called "hardcore gamers" will in many cases be described as "hardcore games".
But personally i dont think that it really matters if a game is being described as a "casual game" or as "hardcore game", i think what matters the most is that the game is fun to play
I just wanted to mention what i think about when i see people mentions "casual games" and "hardcore games" and this is this the way that i would describe "casual games/gamers" and "hardcore games/gamers"
By the way, just a comment regarding what i said earlier about "the gameplay mechanics usually are simple", i was then mostly thinking about gameplay in newer games, because controllers have gotten more buttons on them now compared to how the controllers were for for example 20 years ago. If you make a game today that uses for example 3-4 buttons, this is more simple gameplay mechanics compared to other games that uses for example 10-12 buttons
And every attempt I see to explain them becomes self contradictory in one way, or another.
It falsely attempts to split gamers into two groups...and that's wholly inaccurate.
Maybe my earlier explanations werent that good earlier, sorry, but i just tried to explain that there are different type of gamers. Some people play much, some people doesnt play that much. Some people really likes for example more deeper adventure games, some people dont like these types of games, but likes simpler games instead.
Since there are different types of gamers, descriptions like "causal gamers" and "hardcore gamers" have been made to make it more easier to describe what types of gamers we are talking about, at least in my opinion. But there is not always a key answer to what a "casual gamer" and a "hardcore gamer" is, but it is more a genereal description. There are different types of gamers, there is nothing wrong with that
In what way is it falsely attemps to split gamers into two groups when there excist different types of gamers? How would you describe the different type of gamers? I dont think that there is anything negative to have a description for a certain type of gamer when there excist different types of gamers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mstOk3u2KY
Exactly what I'm talking about.
I would say there is a spectrum of gamers that can't be cleanly divided into groups.
When you say "divided into groups", to me this sounds like you mean this in a negative way? Everyone is concidered as a gamer, i agree to that. I am just saying that "causal gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is a way to describe a certain type of gamer. To me, this is pretty much exactly the same as saying "adventure game fan" to a gamer that really likes adventure games or a "first person shooter fan" to a gamer that really likes first person shooter games. The only difference is that for example "adventure game fan" is more of a direct description, while "hardcore gamer" is more of a general description.
It is just the same with for example cars. Every car is "a car" in the wide spectrum, but you have different types of cars, like for example SUV. A SUV is just a way to describe which type of car it is.
Maybe we have different views on this, and i respect that fully, but personally i look at "causal gamers" and "hardcore gamers" only as simple descriptions to describe what type of gamer it is. No gamer is "worth less" (or what i shall say) if their type of gaming could defined as "this" or "that". I dont see why there should be anything negative in this. Is it negative to call a type of car a SUV instead of calling it "a car"? I am just wondering why you think these descriptions are something negative, at least this is how i understand what you mean, that you think that it is something negative to it. But if i missunderstood what you ment, then please correct me
I dont know if everyone has the same opinions about what a "casual gamer" and a "hardcore gamer" is, but these are my opinions about it at least and i mean nothing negative about it, i just mean it as simple descriptions to describe what kind of playing pattern and what types of games a person has.
EDIT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mstOk3u2KY
I dont know if that link was ment to be referring to anything that i have said/written in this thread, but what i have been saying about "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers" has nothing to do with placing people in booths just to underline that. I have just mentioned that "casual gamers" and "hardcore gamers" is in my opinion just simple ways to describe what types of gamers they are. I have ment nothing negative about that, everyone is concidered as gamers no matter if they play 5 minutes each week or 50 hours each week. Putting people in booth is something that i strongly dislike, so i just had to point out what i ment.
Hardcore generally means "really into it" casual means you just play once in a while and don't really care. However, there are people who are "really into" any kind of game, including the ones on the wii.
I know what you are trying to get at, but I don't think the labels you are using really fit.
Hardcore generally means "really into it" casual means you just play once in a while and don't really care. However, there are people who are "really into" any kind of game, including the ones on the wii.
There are probably people that spend more time playing "Farmville" than most "hardcore" gamers spend playing their PS3 or XBox360.
I know what you are trying to get at, but I don't think the labels you are using really fit.
Hardcore generally means "really into it" casual means you just play once in a while and don't really care. However, there are people who are "really into" any kind of game, including the ones on the wii.
Are you referring to what i said? If yes, in what way doesnt the labels fit? The way you describe hardcore and casual is pretty much the exact same way that i described it
A person that is "really into" any kind of game is something that i would describe as a hardcore gamer because "any kind of game" includes every game genre out there. A typical "hardcore gamer" inst neccessarily only interested in playing shooting games and/or adventure games, he/she could be interested in playing any types of games, at last in my opinion.
A "hardcore gamer" is someone who usually are more interested in games in general, or that is "really into it" as you mentioned, and that usually also plays more "deeper/advanced" games. While a "casual gamer" is someone who usually are less interested in games in general, or that "don't really care" as you mentioned, and that usually doesnt have that high interested in playing more "deeper/advanced" games. I think that it is important to mention that "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is more of a general descripion of gamers.
There are probably people that spend more time playing "Farmville" than most "hardcore" gamers spend playing their PS3 or XBox360.
Indeed. Such a player might be concidered as a "hardcore Farmville player", at least in my opinion
I think that it is important to mention that the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" descriptions are more a basic description of gaming audiences in general and not a description that necessarily describes each person/gamer individually.
There are always some exceptions, for example, if a person only plays games for maybe 2 hours each week, but this person really likes to play more "deeper/advanced" games, is this person a casual gamer or a hardcore gamer then? He/she doesnt play often like the general "casual gamer" does, but he/she are interested in playing more "deeper/advanced" games like the general "hardcore gamer" does. In some case cases it isnt really a clear cut way to describe a gamer, at least in my opinion. That is why i think it is important to mention that a "casual gamer" and a "hardcore gamer" is more of a basic and general description of a wider range of audience.
I dont think that it really matters if a gamer is described as a "casual gamer" or as a "hardcore gamer", what matters the most to me is that people are having fun playing games
I respect your opinion about using the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" description, but i am just curious about why you think the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" descriptions are something negative?
If a person basically only makes for example country-western music, wouldnt you describe this person as a "country-western artist", and if a person basically only makes hip-hop music, wouldnt you describe this person as a "hip-hop artist", and a person that basically only makes pop-music as a "pop artist"? Is describing a musican as for example "country-western artist" putting people in booths? Because technically you could just describe all musicans as "musicans". But using descriptions like "country-western artist" describes more clearly what type of musican it is. Another example is that "Star Trek fans" and "Star Wars fans" is just describing what types of "Sci-Fi" fans someone is.
When i see the description "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer", i dont see this as any different than using "country-western artist" and "hip-hop" artist when it comes to musicans. A country-western artist might have been featured in one hip-hop song, but if this country-western artist basically only makes country-western music, then i think that it is correct to describe him as a country-western artist in general.
I am just curious why you think that the "causal gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" descriptions are something negative. I cant really see why there would be anything negative to this, even Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony uses this descriptions towards their own consumers. I know that you said that you think using these description is placing people in booths, but would that also mean that calling a musican for example a "country-western artist" is splitting the musicans and placing them in booths as well? If you dont think so, then what is the difference between these 2 things?
I am sorry for writing long posts, but i just feel that i need to write this much to get my points out as clearly as possible.
After my personal experience and from what i have heard/read, it is not really that common that people describes "hardcore gamers" as a negative thing, at least i dont understand it as that anything negative stuff is said about it. Some people might mean it in a negative way, but personally i cant recall to have seen that this is something common.
After my experience, when many people uses the term "hardcore gamer" and "causal gamer", then they are only using a basic description of a group of gamers that describes they way that they usually play in general, and they mean nothing negative things at all when they talk about "casual gamer" and/or" "hardcore gamer". This is at least the way that i mean when i talk about a "casual gamer" and a "hardcore gamer", i dont mean anything negative things about it at all.
I think this is also the way that Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony also mean it when they talk about it, that they dont mean anything negative about it, but that they uses the descriptions "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" just to use a basic description to describe what type of gamer it is.
I would concider myself as a hardcore gamer because i usually play relatively much (probably at least 2-3 hours each day) and because that i also have much interest in playing games with a "deeper" experience. It is not like i go around and call myself a hardcore gamer or anything, but if i had to describe which type of gamer that i am, then i would say say that i am a hardcore gamer when it comes to choosing between "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer".
Even if i would concider myself as a hardcore gamer, this doesnt mean that i hate any game genres or consoles. There are game genres and consoles that i personally find less interesting compared to others, but i dont hate anything because of this. I am open to any game genres as long as i find the games entertaining to play. So i hope that you dont think that i am a guy that hates certain game genres and certain consoles just because i would concider myself as a hardcore gamer?
But i see what you mean. But i just wanted to say that not everyone mean anything negative at all when they talk about "casual games/gamers" and "hardcore games/gamers", and i am one of those person who doesnt mean anything negative about it. So if you see me talking about "casual games/gamers" and/or "hardcore games/gamers" in the upcoming future, i can assure you that i dont mean anything negative about this at all, i will then only mean it as a basic description and i would not mean anything negative with it
I also dont really understand why people talk bad about consoles. In this generataion (PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii), i think that every console is great. I have seen a lot of negative talk about gaming stuff in this generation, and i think that is a pity
Jeez, you sure are an apologist for the use of terms that really should never have been brought into the lexicon in the first place.
What does this mean? English isnt my first language, sorry.
Jeez, you sure are an apologist for the use of terms that really should never have been brought into the lexicon in the first place.
What does this mean? English isnt my first language, sorry.
I was hoping that was the case...this makes your stance in the discussion make quite a bit more sense.
I suspect that underlying negativity associated with this discussion is truly "lost in translation" for you.
Anyway, per your question, "an apologist" is someone who defends an idea or belief, and the rest of my statement is basically saying the terms should never have been used in the way that they are.
I was hoping that was the case...this makes your stance in the discussion make quite a bit more sense.
I suspect that underlying negativity associated with this discussion is truly "lost in translation" for you.
Anyway, per your question, "an apologist" is someone who defends an idea or belief, and the rest of my statement is basically saying the terms should never have been used in the way that they are.
Ok, i see, thanks for the explanation of what "an apologist is"
I dont think that i am "lost in translation" here. I am pretty sure that i have understood everything that you have written. Basically, you say that "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" are something negative, while i dont think that there is anything negative about this. Or is there anything that i have missed or missunderstood in this discussion?
And this doesnt really have anything to do with being an apologist at all. I am just trying to explain to you that not everyone means anything negative when they say "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer". That was basically all i tried to do.
If you dont want to take any of my points into concideration and if you want to think that "causal gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is a negative thing, that is fine, i respect that, but i hope at least that you now know that "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is not something that everyone would concider as a negative thing and that some people uses these terms only as a simple description and nothing else.
I suspect if we polled the users of this site, they would say that the terms carry a predominantly negative connotation. They are typically used in such a way that, as a gamer that cares about gaming, it's demeaning to be considered a "casual" gamer and masculine/macho/otherwise-positive to be considered a "hardcore" gamer. You don't have to read many forums to see people chide each other about the games they do, or don't, play.
Overall, the terms, the overly simplistic categorization, and the underlying marketing bring out an undeniable, readily-visible negativity.
Ok, i see, i will try to explain. The reason for why i am defending it, or rather trying to explain my opinion about using these terms, is because i sometimes (although rarely) might use the temrs "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer". If i read that someone who say that using these terms is concidered as talking bad things about certain game genres and/or consoles, i would like to explain what i mean with these terms so people dont think that i talk about things about stuff. I dont want people to think that i talk about things about stuff when this isnt my intention at all.
About running a poll on this site, the outcome of that poll might have been the way that you say indeed. But if there are 100 people, and 99 of these people think that it is something negative, and i was the only one who didnt think that it was a negative thing, i would respect all the other peoples opinion, but i would still have had my same opinions about "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer"
When you say "typically used in such way", then i cant really say anything against this because i dont know what experience you have with this. I can only speak out from my own personal experience with this, and my personal experience with this is that it isnt typically used in this way. I do however recognize the description that you say, but from my experience, this is not typical from what i have read/heard. I guess that we have different experiences when it comes to what people means with "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer".
-
And i wouldnt say that there is any undeniable, readily-visible negativity to it, at least in my opinion. This might be the case when some persons uses these terms though, that is true, but not always. I would guess that for example Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony uses these terms because they are simple, so they dont have to explain too much about what types of gamers that they mean, so it is easier to just devide it into "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" instead, i think so at least 
You might say that it is an overly simpstic categorization indeed, i agree, but simplistic isnt always something negative, at least in my opinion
But if you dont agree with what i say, i respect that. But if you see me using the terms "casual gamer" and/or "hardcore gamer" in the upcoming future, i hope that you dont think that i mean anything negative about this
I hope that what i have written in this thread hasnt been understood as me being rude or anything like that because i have always tried to write in a friendly way. I fully respect if someone else as a different opinion than what i have. I just wanted to mention that i didnt mean to be rude at all even if i disagreed on something.
This is about right. I would be a casual gamer then, with a little bit of hc. I have a Wii and it's my only system. I have 14 legit games for it right now and pretty much everything I want on the VC and WiiWare (thank you soft-mod). I had a 360 at one point, and I'll have one again somewhere down the line, but all I played on it was Xbox Live Arcade games (Lumines, Rez, Pac-Man Championship Edition, and so on). There's room for everyone on the gaming scale, as the Wii has shown this generation, and so much so that Microsoft and Sony are coming out with their own motion controls, but that's another discussion for another time
I respect that you have your own opinion of what these terms mean to you...just recognize that they mean something different to most people.
I am not sure if most people think that there is something negative by using the "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer", i am under the impression that most people dont think that there is anything negative about it, but that is just after my experience, i dont really know what most people in general thinks about. I think that it should have been interesting to know this
But i know that some people mean that there is something negative about it at least 
I didnt mean to imply that you didnt respect my opinion just in case what i wrote earlier was understood in that way, i didnt mean it anything like that. I just wanted to say that
By the way, out of curiousity, who are "most people"? Is it "most people" in general or is it "most people" at a certain forum or website etc.? If we for example as 1000 people if they think these descriptions are something negative, and 700 of these people dont think that is anything negative about it, or if these 700 people think that there is something negative aboutit, are these 700 people "most people"? Technically, these 700 people are only a fraction of the millions upon millions of gamers out there, so who are "most people"? I am just curious about this
But even if we have different opinions about if "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is something negative, i think that we have come to an agreement that people looks at these descriptions in a different way
And i think that we both have gotten our points out in this discussion now 
Even if we dont agree on all points, i think that this might be a good thing, because i think that it would be boring if everyone had the same opinion about everything. Thanks for the discussion! 
-
And just to clearify something that i wrote earlier in case i didnt write it good enough, when i said that even if 99 out of 100 people had a different opinion than me, i didnt mean to say something like "i am the only person that is correct, the 99 other persons are wrong". I just ment to say i would still have my opinion even if 99 other persons had another opinion.
I would fully respect if the other 99 persons had a different opinion than me just to underline that, but i would have thought that it would be a bit pity if the 99 other person would think that there is something negative with the "casual gamer" and the "hardcore gamer" description though, because i know that i am not the only one who sees these descriptions are something neutral/positive and not as something negative.
So i think that it would be a bit pity if many people thought that for example i ment something negative if i used the "casual gamer" and/or the "hardcore gamer" descripions because i dont mean anything negative about these descriptions at all
What do you think about this, is it good or bad that people feel that "casual gamer" and "hardcore gamer" is something negative when other people dont feel that it is anything negative?
i actually lost this conversation for a while because i forgot to subscribe to it but I think I understand where both are coming from.. And man did I open a can of worms.. I think What jajaja is saying is exactly what i meant in the first place..
Yep, that is a good description of how i see what "casual games/gamers" and "hardcore games/gamers" are
Ye, i think so too, i agree
I would say that this description fits me pretty good
I like to play both many casual games and hardcore games. I would never not play a game genre just because it might be "too casual" or "too hardcore", as long as i think that a game looks interesting a fun to play, then i will most likely try the game out to see if i like it 
I am actually a bit the opposite
When it comes to the PS3, the Xbox 360 and the Wii, i personally find the PS3 the most interesting console. I think that all three consoles are good though just to underline that and i think that all three consoles has some good content, but for me personally i find the PS3 the most interesting console for my use/taste 
But i think that is good that not every person prefer the exact same console because i think that it would be boring if everyon preferred the exact same things 
Yea I saw an article on the PS3 Motion controller and i am waiting for a Nintendo Lawsuit.. It is basically the same as the WiiMote with motion + but it is tracked by the PS Eye (they have finally found a real use for that thing) rather than an infra-red sensor bar.
I would be surprised if Nintendo sues Sony because of a similar controller scheme. I think that would be so to say the same if Sony should sue Microsoft because of Natal looks quite similar to the PS Eye. But i guess that we will have to wait and see if any lawsuits will happend
Yea I saw an article on the PS3 Motion controller and i am waiting for a Nintendo Lawsuit.. It is basically the same as the WiiMote with motion + but it is tracked by the PS Eye (they have finally found a real use for that thing) rather than an infra-red sensor bar.
I would be surprised if Nintendo sues Sony because of a similar controller scheme. I think that would be so to say the same if Sony should sue Microsoft because of Natal looks quite similar to the PS Eye. But i guess that we will have to wait and see if any lawsuits will happend
Ah yes, that is true, i didnt think about patents. Come to think of it, Nintendo has been sued some times because companies means that the Wii Remote infringes with other patents. I dont think that any companies have won any of these lawsuits yet, but maybe it takes a long time to process a case like this in court? Like you said, some of these lawsuits might in some cases be fought in court over several of years.
If Nintendo wanted to sue Sony because of similar controllers, i wonder if they would have done it already because the Playstation motion controller has been known for quite some time now. I think that it was first shown at E3 2009, which was about 8-9 months ago. But maybe not all info about the Playstation motion controller is known yet, so Nintendo doesnt know if it infringes with their patents or not.
But even if there could be som patent infringments, i wonder if Nintendo would sue Sony anyway. Wouldnt such a lawsuit become publically known? And such a lawsuit isnt necessarily good PR for Nintendo i think?
Reggie Fils-Aimé was asked in the latest episode of GTTV that he didnt look at the Sony motion controller and Microsoft motion controller and he said that he wouldnt go as far as calling them as knock-offs. He mostly thinks that Sony's motion controller and Microsoft's motion controller will fall short mostly because Nintendo focus more on motion controls. The Wii Remote is after all the standard controller for the Wii, so it seems that Nintendo focus more on motion controls indeed. I am sure that both Microsoft and Sony will push their motion controls with relatively much adverticing, but will they focus just as much on motion controls as Nintendo does? It shall be interesting to see i think
But what Reggie Fils-Aimé said in that GTTV interview might not tell much if Nintendo will sue Sony or not though. Reggie Fils-Aimé is "only" the president of Nintendo of America, so i dont know how he decides when it comes to what decitions Nintendo in general does. But in that GTTV interview, it seems to me that he didnt seem to worry too much abou Sony's motion controller or Microsoft's motion controller at least.
But i guess that time will tell and we will see if Nintendo sues Sony or not
According to Wikipedia, the EyeToy camera (the first camera that was made for the Playstation 2, not "PS Eye" that is mainly made for the Playstation 3) uses "computer vision" and "Gesture recognition" technoligies. Are these technoligies used often i USB cameras? I have very little knowledge about USB cameras in general, so i am just wondering about it
Wikipedia also mentions that EyeToy is developed by Sony, but manufactured by Logitech and that newer EyeToy cameras are manufactured by Namtai.
But ye, Sony wasnt the first to develope USB cameras while Nintendo has more direct developed their WiiMote, so i think i know what you mean, and that is true
Microsoft's Natal is indeed more advanced compared to "EyeToy" and "PS Eye", that is also true. I was just thinking if it was possible to take patent on something like "standing infront of the TV using a camera that you interact with like with for example playing games". In afterthought, maybe it isnt possible to take a patent like this, but i dont really know.
Also Brian, you can't patent ideas, only applications.