Sony @ E3 #1: Failing to Impress
June 16, 2010 – 8:45 amHere’s a change of pace: an independent E3 2010 attendee reviews Sony’s press conference and offerings:
The Sony media briefing was not that interesting. There weren’t many surprises and it dragged on. As a friend mentioned, the Nintendo conference flew by in an instant, but Sony’s got boring and seemed to run on like a Best Director-winner full of Oscar hubris.
Oh PlayStation Move … I’d mock you if a photo weren’t mockery enough. This contraption is ugly and expensive: $49 for the Move wand with the glowing ball (some games require two), another $29 for the analog attachment (some games require this as well), then you’ve got to buy a PlayStation Eye, which is another $40.
When Sony announced the price for PlayStation Move was just $49, everyone at the briefing collectively gasped. When they announced their scheme to nickel and dime everyone even remotely interested in trying one of their flagrant Wii ripoffs, the room reverberated with groans.
I went to the booth and tried it out, right after spending some quality time on Zelda. There is no question: Sony has more processing muscle and boasts that Move is “more precise” than Wii’s remote, but I couldn’t tell the difference or see how Move is even preferable. This is especially true when one considers, you’re looking at over $240 just so you and a buddy can fight with pseudo-realistic graphics, when it’s not as intuitive as Wii Sports boxing.
Add two of the $29 analogue remotes, required for most games where the player moves in 3D space, plus the $39-59 for a game and you’re well past the price of a PS3. You’ve essentially bought a new console.
All the price hoops consumers have to jump though to enjoy Move with their friends makes me wonder if Sony is hedging its bets on this product.
I ran through some archery, worked up a sweat on their street brawling game and played with a virtual pet. While the graphics were beyond Wii’s range, the motion controls were not and all of Sony’s working concepts have been done and done better by Nintendo. Move is little more than a ripoff, and a seriously clunky one at that. It has a greater chance of success than Microsoft’s Kinect (ugh), but they’re effectively splitting the market by not including it with all future PlayStation 3 units. This is no small upgrade like the Wii Motion Plus.
Sony’s 3D presentation during the briefing and on the show floor failed to impress me. I own a 3D-capable PC and a pair of active shutter glasses for gaming, so this is tech that I’m quite familiar with as a consumer. Sony’s 3D comes up short on depth of field, where an impressive range is very important.
During the briefing, they showed off Killzone 3 in 3D. While the company hopes it will be a “benchmark” for their 3D experience, I’m just hoping they can show depth a little further out than the gun’s barrel. For all their hype about “innovation,” making me wear a pair of polarized 3D glasses at the presser and active shutter glasses to play Gran Turismo 5 was a little disappointing. And seriously, Killzone looked like another generic shooter. Adding “jetpacks” does not make me want to spend $60.
I spoke to a Sony rep about how their stereoscopic 3D will work and was told that PlayStation 3 will display 3D on any 3D-compliant display: meaning, 120HZ monitor owners (like me) are in luck. It’s supposed to work with any 3D shutter glasses as well, but when I inquired specifically about NVidia’s 3D Vision glasses (which I paid $200 for), he couldn’t say if they’re supported or not.
The Sony rep also did not know if the user will be able to adjust the 3D effect, which seemed to be stuck on minimum. Sure, the small depth of field looks cool at first, but not so much if you’ve ever played Need for Speed: Shift or Burnout Paradise on a proper 3D Vision gaming PC. There, users have the option of a scroll wheel that turns image separation up or down. “Maybe that’s in the firmware?” the Sony rep pondered. “I don’t know.”
Still, to game in 3D on PlayStation 3, consumers are looking at a significant investment of time and money: first on research to find a good 3D display, then on figuring out which active shutter glasses to buy. Better (or worse?) yet, one pair of shutter glasses means only one person can appreciate the effect. Add a few more pairs and you’re over $1,000, at least.
It’s just not worth that price.
Source @ Brave New Hooks - True/Slant




