My comments are based on nearly a decade of virtual reality research into precisely the arena into which Sony and Microsoft are headed. Sony was into the body motion recognition and control arena long before Natal and still has the capability of performing Natal-like functions with their technology (and in fact have been doing it in their labs for years). The problem is expense and market readiness. Delivering Natal is an expensive proposition to the user because it requires pricey hardware. The price will decrease with time, but Sony has chosen a more incremental approach that gets them to the market more quickly.

It’s a fascinating reverse of the situation at the launch of the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Microsoft went with cheaper off-the-shelf components and got to the market faster. Sony went with more functionality, but at the cost of time and a higher price point. Clearly, that decision hurt Sony this generation. It’s going to be interesting to see how the two companies’ motion control approaches shake out.

You said “Basically, Sony’s approach is Natal plus a controller.”
That’s is irrational! Does the Sony controller tell you Were a persons feet is and was? How fast they kicked? While at the same time telling you they blinked? And open there mouth? no but it can tell you they slung the right arm (something Natal can do in great detail even showing the angles of the arm)

you said: “The idea that gamers do not want a controller, in addition to body motion recognition, ”
Irrational this is fan wishery. There is no want for a controller, instead the is a want for control. Why do I need to learn that left,back left, down, down right, right plus press A at a exact sequence means fireball! Cant I just make a fire ball motion instead? When you think of it you are interpreting commands you want executed into a controller so that the console will know what you want it to do. It’s easier to do it with your body. Microsoft did not say you could not use a controller. And Sony did not say you can do without on with theirs so you are backwards on that!

you said: “Virtual reality studies have shown that the gaming experience is enhanced when there is a hardware device in the gamer’s hand that he can use along with body motion recognition.” How is that when there has not been a game without controllers to compare it to? I’m not saying you made it up, even though it sounds like it. But I think your coming to irrational conclusions. Especially seeing you said Sonys is natal+plus.

You said:”For example, who wants to play an FPS without a controller which the gamer uses as his weapon?” This question shows your lack of being able to think things through until you see someone else do it. Kinda like people that said now one will want a computer for music, movie, internet. Until they actually see it they don’t get it. You not seeing it does not prove no one will like or love it.

Then you have your conclusion. I have not heard any none fans say Microsoft should tune down the interface and require a controller. They are going for mass market and hardcore.

The cultural bias I mentioned is in the Xbox group, regarding motion control for games. Which is why they’ve positioned Natal as an alternative, simplified control scheme rather than an extension of the default. They’ve been saying for years that the joypad is good enough for everyone (and – purely to rain on the Wii’s parade in stark contravention of observable fact – that motion control *couldn’t* do everything a joypad could) and now they’ve betted that developers and consumers agree. I think they’re wrong. Once you’ve been able to intuitively move a pointer in 3d space, you’re not going to want to go back to aiming and navigating with a joystick.

“there is nothing to stop game designers implementing Natal and the controller at the same time.”

Except that holding a controller with both hands makes it rather difficult to perform gestures. Unless it can do some sort of fancy headtracking (which they’d have shown), it’s an either/or proposition. I don’t think you’ve thought this through in practical terms.

There is Microsoft Surface: http://www.microsoft.com/surface/
The new Windows 7 has touchscreen: http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49299697,00.htm
Zune HD has an accelerometer and touch screen. http://www.bruceongames.com/2009/05/27/zune-hd-microsoft-have-lost-it/
And finally the Xbox 360, with Natal, is getting the world’s first mass market full body interface with voice and face recognition: http://www.bruceongames.com/2009/06/02/microsoft-natal-gesture-interface/

And as for FPS games etc, there is nothing to stop game designers implementing Natal and the controller at the same time.

So your comment looks like a misinformed dig at Microsoft and not a sensible contribution to the discussion.

Still, as Natal is going to be releasing months after the other two, they have time to make it more than a novelty – assuming their cultural bias against motion control can be overcome.

Yes, Microsoft can and, I expect, will need to come up with a controller of some sort to go with Natal on individual games. My point was simply that Sony has done that already. I am not dissing Natal by any means — I think it’s cool. It just looks to me that Sony may be closer to market readiness right now, and that Microsoft and Sony are actually heading very much in the same direction (which is not surprising).

It’s that Sony’s technology needs the controller in order to fulfil 3D tracking. Whereas Natal’s multiple cameras, don’t.

Microsoft could easily bundle in a wii-mote with Natal and have that tactile feel.