Play games with the Xbox 360 remote?
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Oct 6th 2005 at 12:15PM }
It's no revolutionary concept, but J Allard revealed that the Xbox 360 remote
would double as a game controller. It's not like you're gonna be hittin' the long ball or winning any fragfests with
the media remote, but, as Allard points out, "You're going to be able to play casual games on Live Arcade with the
remote control." It's a nice feature for anyone too lazy to reach down and pick up the wireless controller.
Allard also praised Nintendo for the Revolution controller,
but had his doubts… "I don't think most Electronic Arts games are going to be played with that thing."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Fuzz @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
That should be about as intuitive as playing a game with a cellphone keypad.
jc @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I can play games on the PS2 DVD remote, as long as it doesn't need the analogue stick. I don't though, because it is slow, the buttons are tiny and I have realy contollers.
Is anyone really lazy enough that they can't reach the extra 6 inches for the controller? Maybe we can get some lanyards for these people so the controller is always around their neck.
Thanks J Allard for another way to sell ice to the eskimos.
Chachi @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I dont think most Electronic Arts games are going to be played with that thing.
It seems as though he's finally catching on. I think the whole point of Nintendo's stance on the next generation of its hardware is that it won't matter whether the latest Madden game is ported to its console. People that want to play those types of games on Revolution are going to have the option, albeit at an increased cost(new controller/controller adaptor), but that is not going to be their focus. My impression of the Nintendo keynote was that they don't want to just make a system that gets pretty ports of sequals. Rather, it wants to be a home for games that nobody else would risk making.
Lectoid @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
That should be about as intuitive as playing a game with a cellphone keypad.
seconded
SlipstreamBRO @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
This is a way so that parents of kids can use the xbox as well. That's what they're trying to get across...How many hardcore gamers actually use the Xbox Arcade? Not many, I'm guessing.
So, those that are intimidated by their kid's/spouse's 360 controller they can use the remote. I think it's a great idea.
Fuzz @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
SlipstreamBro-
Riiiighttt . . .so you think that a remote with roughly 40 buttons, and no realy obvious D-pad will be easier for "mom" to figure out than the standard controller?
I think your smoking the same stuff as J. Allard.
retro @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Not having to suffer through EA games?
revolution is sounding better every day.
benderillo @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
If I was downloading a large file, I could see myself using this to play breakout or pacman or something like that...
its not completely useless, though its not going to be a selling point.
Spencer @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
#3 has it down pat.
That's it. Beginning and end.
Nintendo likes innovation.
EA fears it like the plague.
The two just don't gel, and I think Nintendo did the controller to discourage Madden '06, '07, etc with little or no change between the countless sequels and crappy gameplay to begin with.
Also, I don't think MS is ripping of the Rev controller. If they are, they're not doing it very well.
The rev controller's main function is the gyroscopic stuff. The X360 DVD remote doesn't have that. Besides, they're just gonna have Pac-man type stuff on the X360 remote.
Granted, it's a little odd to announce it just now...
jc @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
** this new car comes with multiple, manually controllable precision enviroment comfort management systems **
translation: dude, you car doesn't have air-conditioning so you will need to roll down the windows
soco @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
you also won't look like a fruit waving a joystiq around...
this is obviously for things like the bundled HDD game Hexic and other xboxarcade like games. this also isn't an attempt to copy nintendo, as companies have made machines for years now that you can play games with the remote. take the cd-i or the Streamium internet connected DVD players that let you java games with it. they're actually suited quite well for such things.
m @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I'm surprised noone has mentioned this yet because it's quite obvious but the revolution has gamecube controller ports. Yeah, a cube controller won't come with the system but people will buy one or more to play a high profile game like Madden.
White Rose Duelist @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I dont think most Electronic Arts games are going to be played with that thing.
That's major bonus points for the Revolution.
Martez @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I dont think most Electronic Arts games are going to be played with that thing.
This is a bad thing because...?
Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Guys, the article says that in a Q&A, Allard states that you can use it for casual games. Joystiq saying that he "revealed" it is a little bit of hyperbole. Anyone who's seen pics of the remote has seen the xbox controller buttons on it, so this is something that has been evident for quite some time, as far as I'm concerned. It's something that makes sense to implement on the remote for basically "why not" reasons. It's not something that they're acting like is a selling point or some sort of innovation. Allard just mentioned it in a Q&A and "somebody" ran with it. No big deal.
Also, who doesn't have the same opinion of the Revolution controller? It's common sense. The thing seems like it might be pretty cool for some things (that's why he praised it), but it's a risk and it won't work for all types of games (that's why he has doubts).
unrealMcCoy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Most EA games won't, but ALL Nintendo games will.
J @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Problem is people, THIS IS A REMOTE FIRSTLY, NOT A CONTROLLER.
I can see why J Allard has brought this concept forward to us, but there are far too many buttons and ISN'T exactly an attractive piece as far as intoducing it as a controller, when he was creating it as a normal remote.
Nice try J Allard but no cigar, stick with the controller you built, far better
Glenn @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I know I've hit on this before, but the XBOX 360 remote control doesn't look "next-gen" enough. It looks more like a XBOX 1.5 or XBOX 180 remote control
thunder @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
maybe you all didn't read EA's statment about the controller, EA says the first of their games to utilize the controller are their sports tites meaning, madden , tiger nba all of those before teh medal of honor series.
Matthew @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
m, I've noticed the same thing. It seems that a lot of people forgot about the Cube controllers, which can be used for "traditional" games on the Revolution. What's even better though, is that the "controller shell's" that come out for Revolution, not only will it enable you to play "traditional" games, but you get the added option of the motion sensors, or whatever the technology is. But I think it's good that people forgot about it. This means that they're attention is brought to the Revolution controller, which in turn means their interested in it for better or worse. As Martha Stewart says, "it's a good thing." lol... Please, no one bash me for that. lol
elmer @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I think virtually every type of game made on previous systems can be ported to the Revolution controller with a little bit of imagination. Especially sports games which EA love so much.
However, as we all know, imagination is illegal in the State of EA.
I for one won't miss any of their stuff we don't get, excpet Burnout - Bastards.
b.t.w. has anyone else noticed that the Revolution controller will be approximately 42 times better at navigating menues than even the dedicated xbox remote, because you can just POINT at the thing you're selecting.
elmer @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Heck, i just realised that even the NES Zapper would not just be great for menues but fun too!!!!
jay @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
smashing! i hope theres no EA crap filling up the Rev library :)
s2 @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I don't understand the whole remote control debate. Why anyone is looking forward to such a device to play GAMES is beyond me. Precision control is going to be a problem. Anyone ever try holding a laser pointer steady? Does your hand stay completely still??? Yeah, Nintendo's games are going to have to be "dummified" to allow for such sloppy movements and they're going to to have to be simple so as to not fatigue the player.
Nathaniel @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
s2,thats was they said about the Nintendo DS touch screen...
But we all know how that turned out.
Sanitarium @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I dont think most Electronic Arts games are going to be played with that thing.
Well, there's a reason for that. Turns out EA is the most uncreative and unoriginal publisher in this industry. However, they still manage to be the biggest and wealthiest (video games wise) publisher in the industry. They're a cancer to this industry, its because of people like EA and EA itself in large part that the industry seems headed for a crash. Eventually, people will get sick of playing the same game with better graphics and other slight improvements for such high prices.
A new device that conflicts with EA's values isn't going to be well accepted by them. Where-as the Revolution is here to keep costs down (both development and retail), inspire and encourage new ideas, and expand the market to new user-bases, EA is bent on making video games a very big budget project that invlolves barely any change or enhancements or improvements and putting out the same thing over and over and over so that the same people will buy it year after year.
zero2dash @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Thank you, Allard, for your thoughtful insights on EA.
Except, you see - if I wanted to buy a system for EA's BS, I'd buy YOUR system. But instead, I'm buying a Revolution - for all the cool stuff that Miyamoto will make for it.
jj @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
look s2 you are WAY WRONG look the controler will most likely have a shell for the more tradition games. Allard YOU SUCK. firstly who would buy a xbox 360 for $400. OR one WITHOUT a hard drive for $300. i dont know wether you guys noticed but have you got a extra $550 for the system, a controller and a game. Where as the nintendo revolution will be less and able to play more games. Revolution will be able to download nearly all of the nes,snes, and nintendo64.AND will be able to play gamecube games. Allard Shut your trap on lazyness. OMG make the remote a controller so you dont have to move 4 feet. And thats BS. the revolution controller will be like a laser pointer so you dont have to move your thumb if your that lazy J. Allard
Knot You @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
For all you clowns that think the reason EA wouldn't make games for the Revolution is because they aren't creative... please explain to me a good way you could control Madden with the wand. Okay, now how about NHL games. You could use it for swinging in a MVP (if it still existed) and in tiger woods, but only that. How can you play a racing game? I can't imagine it being much fun with that wand. You have to accelerate and brake. You have to control the car with precision. It just won't work well.
And I'm not saying this because I'm not creative and can't come up with ideas... I'm saying it because it's fact.. those games will not work well with the wand. Someone give me a good idea of how these things would work... go for it. I guarantee people will come up with really bad answers... no good answers. EA's biggest games are generally sports, and the Revolutions controller just won't work with most of them.
I'm all for innovation, and there will be some cool, different games for the Revolution, but the point is... it's the cool thing to bash EA, but in this case, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. Those of us who understand the industry and have a brain aren't impressed by you Nintendo fanboys in diguise who talk trash about EA. They make some good games, some bad. That's the way things work. But Miyamoto is god, right? Nintendo is perfect, right? It's a matter of opinion. I think Nintendo's games suck. I don't play them at all and I have no interest in them, but I'm not going to bash Nintendo because I know a lot of people love their games. Have some perspective. Grow up.
Rootbeer @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Microsoft is actually copying themselves on this one, not Nintendo.
The Windows XP Media Center shell has games that you can play with the MCE remote, too. The bundled title is a colorful little Q*Bert-like puzzle platformer which isn't half bad. There are supposedly other games available for download too, but I could never manage to get them installed properly.
Of course, neither the MCE remote nor the 360 remote is going to have the positional sensing of the Revolution remote, which makes it an uneven comparison. As for the accuracy of the RevRemote -- if programmers have figured out how to implement movement thresholds and velocity calculus for the analog joysticks and mouses that we've been using for the past 20 years, I think they'll be able to work with the remotes just fine.
elmer @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
As for you being creative, yet not recognising how to play a racing game on this controller, how about this:
Hold it horizontal, little 'a' for go, little 'b'for stop. Wanna turn? turn. Simple. Change gears? use the D-pad. Need a handbrake or some kind of missile attatched to your vehicle? Big A. Etc. Etc. I myself can't figure out how to make Madden work, but then i'm not a proffesional game designer; i'm sure it can be done.
On another note, I think it's perfectly fair to trash talk EA for their lack of will to try anything associated with risk, no matter how good an idea it is. Ahem, anything THEY percieve to be risk - Goldeneye to them was no risk; the name was soo good, and exactly why they failed to understand it would underperform.
Besides it's one thing to admonish Nintendo Fanboys hating on EA, but there's been far more and far more ridiculous anti-Nintendo trash about for quite a while.
The Jeremy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I am more impressed by Allard implying he'd be open to Apple making something special for the 360. To me, that sounds like he wouldn't mind seeing iTunes ported to it. You know, if Gates&Ballmer and all the other traditional Microsoft divisions had similar attitudes, the company wouldn't have such a bad name in the tech community.
Jack Daddy @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Can I just say that all the "xbox 1.5" and "xbox 180" comments have completely run their course. It's just not funny anymore... at all. To quote Kramer, "sooooo played".
Andrew Hsieh @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Woo, I'm still reeling from the fact that J Allard said something nice to Nintendo. =D
I'm still not certain as to whether or not I should go along with everyone else killing off EA's rep. I mean, seriously: there's some good, some bad. What's the rush to suddenly go beat on them?
LaughRiot @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I fail to see how you can compare the DS touch screen to the [remote] controller used by the Revolution. They're two different animals. On one you're right on top of the screen, the other you're several feet away.
It'll be interesting to see how Nintendo is going to pull off precision control. With a control pad, it's generally "centered" or self centering. How do you do that with a remote UNLESS you use the pad control on the remote or via an attachment? Nobody has a truly steady hand, so how are slight movements or "bounces" going to be handled? If you have to leave your hand forward or wave it around, then you introduce endurance.
I'm thinking the games are going to have to be created to compensate for these issues, which is to say they'll be simplified. Most likely not every game with use the remote.
But enough about this...
fusion @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Wow!! Do you guys think that microsoft or sony would be doing all of this (we have a cool remote/concept copy)stuff if Nintendo would have waited longer to show the revolution controller?
It just seems that Nintendo was right about people
copying them.Did we hear Nintendo say or copy anything off of ps3 or 360?...NOOOOO,people need to open their eyes and stop the hate they have for the only true game company around,.. NINTENDO.
CcntMnky @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
I like how he uses EA to describe the standard cookie-cutter games. I think that's true, but it's still interesting that they're now used as a label by more than me.
FreeCajunLove @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Yeah fusion, Nintendo was the first to put internal memory or a DVD player in a console, and the gyro controller is sooooo new: http://www.gyration.com/gyroremote.htm
Their next system, will contain revolutionary NintendHD, which enables the users to play an even more life-like of the cartoon characters fanboys love and cherish.
Nintendo is ALWAYS one-step behind...
fusion @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
FreeCajunLove just answer the question and stop
the hate.Nintendo is the only one who's made a profit and I feel that they will in the future with the Revolution.The majority of Nintendo games are not for kids or cartoony so just stop it with the Nintendo= kiddy stuff cause you sound like somebody who works for G4tv or Gamestop or something.I think that the Nintendo Revolution will be Revolutionary not just because of the controller but because of the main important thing, THE GAMES.Thousands of games that millions of people still love till this day and thats not including the new Revolution games that are going to come out so just stop it,and just to clear one more thing up
NINTENDO DID COME UP WITH ALOT OF THINGS FIRST so just stop it.
FreeCajunLove @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
So what did they create first? I can only think of game characters.
There is nothing revolutionary about the new console other than it is next-gen and small. Everything else about it existed in the previous consoles; that's why you will probably have to wait till the next generation of Nintendo for HD support. They hesitate a lot. And don't say anything about downloading old games because I already play all those games (plus third party) on my Xbox for free.
eric @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Microsoft hasn't shown anything new as a result of the Nintendo controller. It was merely stated the existing remote COULD be used for playing games. Nobody is suggesting that the remote SHOULD be used for games.
All the other stuff dug up where both Sony and Microsoft experimented with the same technology, and Sony actually released something similiar with the EyeToy would have been dug up ANYWAY when Nintendo finally did release their controller design.
Let's just get over this. We're arguing about a remote people. A remote.
fusion @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
D pad, anolog sticks,rumbling controllers,four
controller inputs, true 3D graphics,handhelds, the first video game company to make their own wireless controller witch by far is the best wireless controller till this day,(Wavebird), just a couple of things they did first, you know just to answer your queston (FreeCajunLove)about what they did first.As far as crappy emulated games on a moded up xbrick, alot of those games dont even look or sound or play like the real game,and Nintendo has already said that with the Revolution those old games(NES,SNES,N64)are going to get a up grade,and even if their the same games you emulate on your xbox their not going to be the same.As far as HD they are going to make fools out of sony and microsoft because they just recently said in an interview on g4 that when you see the graphics you wont be able to tell the difference between Revolution and the 360 or ps3 and most people are happy with the TV they already have HD is really overhyped,and finally for (Eric)
the eye toy lets you control in 2d space sony and microsoft's ideas were not the same as Nintendo's because the Revolution controller lets you control and interact in real 3D space
and sony or microsoft wouldn't be saying anything about experiments if nintendo's controller wasn't so praised by most people
xDesigner @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Sorry to burst your bubble, but
Atari produced wireless controllers for the 2600. This was way way before Nintendo even came on the scene. There was also a third party who produced wireless controllers for the 2600.
Atari was actually the first to use 3D in a video game, iRobot which appeared in 84 in arcades. A console version was also developed, but never released (same year).
Handhelds were not by any means invented by Nintendo. There have been many companies that have release such units over the years. One example would be Milton Bradley's Microvision (1979). Epyx developed the Handy in 1987, which Atari released as the Lynx in 1989. Had a backlit color screen.
Four controller inputs.. again, Atari. The 2600 had them, so did the original 5200s, and their early computers (Atari 800...)
Analog controllers-- and for the life of me, I never understood why anyone would want to boast about this, have been available in joysticks used on IBM PCs (among others! TI/99 4a for example) since the late 70s/early 80s.
Directional pads were used by Intellivision.
Force feedback... again Atari. For a joystick in 1983.
I think people dismiss Atari now-a-days because they're just a name used to publish games, but at one time, they had a cutting edge research facility, and developed much more than people realize. They truly innovated a lot of technology.
Donkey Konga @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Sony and Microsoft never said anything about their experiments.... people just dug up their patents or research articles to state that ALL the companies have worked on such projects.
And don't discount the EyeToy as 2-D, it's all a matter of software and interface. When it was being developed, Sony did experiment with 3-D interaction, but precision control was problem.
fusion @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Ok this is for xDesigner.
First let me burst your bubble,those so call analog controllers you speak of were spring activated not the same as pressure contacts,not even close to Nintendo's controller tech,and yeah atari did have a lot of ideas and concepts but that doesn't mean that they went threw with it,and about the point you tried to make about wireless controllers made by atari first is like saying the first 900mhz cordless house phone was the first cell phone,its not the same tech so it
aint the same thing and dude you talking about
the 70's and 80's like they were just as advanced in tech as we are now.As far as the 5200 having four inputs your right about that but almost all the games for it were 1 or 2 player games so the other to were useless the only true thing that the 5200 brought to home console's was the first pause button.Force feedback didn't come out until 1997 and atari had nothing to do with it do your research,as far as the IBM PC dude your talking about the development of the mouse.A man from japan named
Gunpei Yokoi created the D-pad,a cross shaped pad that allowed you to make 8 directional movements unlike intellivision's flat circle/number pad,and last about handhelds the gameboy and the lynx were released the same year
and we see how all that played out the lynx was more powerful but overpriced an heavy with bad battery life with little developer support,sound
familiar(psp)anyway you have to come better than
that dude. NINTENDO RULES!!!!
Rootbeer @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
So now your point is that Nintendo wasn't the first for these technologies, they just made a more techically advanced version of it? Well duh! ...years later. I guess Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone either, Panasonic did.
Nintendo rules last place in America!
fusion @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
My point is that they did do most of that stuff first and that what you were saying was wrong accept that one thing about 4 controller inputs.
Nintendo Rules in profits and innovation and good games no one said they had the biggest market share. NINTENDO RULES!!!!
JS @ Dec 18th 2005 10:00PM
Four word :
Nintendo's Game & Watch
: )