Sony not ready to rumble with Splitfish
by Kyle Orland 
{ Jan 31st 2007 at 4:45PM }
In announcing their SensorFX force feedback system for the PS3 yesterday, accessory-maker SplitFish somewhat coyly mentioned that the technology "can be sold as an add-on to existing controllers or as an imbedded [sic] feature that is part of a standard controller." The second part of that sentence led some to believe that an official deal with Sony to add rumble support to the PS3's SixAxis controller might be afoot.
Today, Sony spokesman Dave Karakker put any such rumors to rest, telling GameDaily that "no one at SCEA has been in touch with this company," and, furthermore, "at this time, we have no plans to incorporate any kind of force feedback into our SIXAXIS controller."
Without any official support from Sony, any PS3 rumble solution from a third party would likely have a hard time garnering support from game developers and publishers. As Immersion CEO Vic Vegas pointed out in an earlier interview with GameDaily "[Sony] can filter out vibration commands; essentially if they don't want vibration they can shut it down and it appears that's what they're doing."
But the question then remains: why don't they want it. Despite Sony's original protests that rumble technology "interferes with information detected by the sensor," the Wii shows that force feedback and motion sensing are possible in the same controller. Legal threats from Immersion might cause Sony to be wary, but Immersion themselves have offered to work with Sony on a legally acceptable solution. Cost might be an issue, but with Sony already losing hundreds on each unit of hardware, a few more bucks of loss in each controller hardly seems like a deal-breaker.
At this point, the only thing we can figure that's stopping Sony from adding rumble support to the SixAxis is some sort of foolish pride. Yes, adding rumble support mere months after the system's launch would essentially be admitting a large mistake in the original controller design. But a self-assured company should be able to absorb this temporary, minor embarrassment for the sake of the long term interests of the system. Sony, apparently, is not that kind of company.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
32_Footsteps @ Jan 31st 2007 4:51PM
Another possible reason is that, after many years of games with rumble features, Sony realizes that the function doesn't really add anything to the video gaming experience. For all that people call for rumble, I can't think of a game actually made better by rumbling.
Unless you're female and got the Trance Vibrator for Rez (which presumably could be used for other games). But while I'm all in favor of getting more girls into gaming, I think we can come up with better ways to do it than that.
Farseer @ Jan 31st 2007 4:51PM
"But a self-assured company should be able to absorb this temporary, minor embarrassment for the sake of the long term interests of the system. Sony, apparently, is not that kind of company."
Oh Snap!
Dirk @ Jan 31st 2007 4:52PM
Metal Gear Solid was made better with rumble. I really hope Sony makes a rumble controller this year.
AirIntake @ Jan 31st 2007 4:53PM
@32_Footsteps
Almost every racing game is made better by rumble. It's how you tell when you're going off the edge of the track (when using in-car view).
sonicyouth @ Jan 31st 2007 5:13PM
I think we will see a SixAxis with rumble in 18-24 months, especially if sales are hurting. This feature is easy for developer to incorporate into games.
Morisato @ Jan 31st 2007 5:03PM
How about rumble in baseball games to indicate that you're pitching outside the strike zone without an onscreen indicator giving off that information to the 2nd player? No one ever remembers when rumble makes the game better, but when it's not there, you'll definitely notice. You might not be able to put your finger on why the game isnt as good anymore, just like you could never put your finger on what made rumble games so good to begin with. It's the rumble.
JodyAnthony @ Jan 31st 2007 5:00PM
any console FPS is better with rumble, when the controller rumbles if you get hit, so you know you're getting hit.
JodyAnthony @ Jan 31st 2007 5:01PM
anyway, do I think rumble is necessary? no. Do I and many others LIKE it? yes. Who cares if it's not necessary? Here's a shocker: NOTHING about video games is necessary. They are things to be enjoied, and a lot of people enjoy rumble, and have been since the N64/PSOne days.
Virtua Fanboy @ Jan 31st 2007 5:03PM
Does anyone remember when N64 came out w/analog technology and all of the sudden Sega/Sony came out with Nights cont./dual analog contollers? Honestly I think that Microsoft should swallow their pride as well and come out w/a Motion control Contoller simular to the Sixaxis. I mean get it out of the way while it's early. It worked w/the PS1 and the anolog sticks. Just pay off those rogue sqaudron guys that are making Lair, port it to 360 and sell the new motion cont. with it and waallaah! Just because they tried it w/the PC in the 90's doesn't mean that it won't work w/consoles now. Fuck this pride shit and get on w/progress! Same for Sony and rumble, LOL.
Andrew @ Jan 31st 2007 5:05PM
If done well, you won't notice you are "enjoying" the rumble. Rather than making you think about how it's improving the experience, it subtly increases your sense of immersion.
It is funny that Sony can't yield to customer demand. MS had no problem redesigning the gamepads when people complained that they were too large and ugly. It just seems odd to be basic features away in the year 2006/2007 - especially from a $500/$600 console.
logikil @ Jan 31st 2007 5:11PM
32_Footsteps:
People who think rumble adds nothing really are kidding themselves. Driving games for one benefit greatly from Force Feedback and Rumble tech. Splinter Cell i believe still used it well. FPS games that uses rumble for the feedback when you are shot or are shooting also use it well.
Obviously some games don't benefit from it like RPGs and the like, but it definitely has it's place. And let's not forget that Sony didn't just say no rumble they also nixed Force Feedback (for those shiny race wheels) which is an even bigger loss for an entire genre of games.
deaftly @ Jan 31st 2007 5:15PM
i honestly couldnt play games without rumble, it just adds to the whole gaming experience, and alot of games out there rely on rumble. of course some sonybot is gonna come in and say, "i always turn off the rumble , its annoying, im glad my ps3 doesnt have it"
Derbeste @ Jan 31st 2007 5:16PM
32 footsteps...
You know I'm actually a big fan of your posting.....
But you kinda got owned on this one.
Saying Rumble is uneccessary is just like saying motion remotes are uneccessary - or Analog directional pads.
I think JodyAnthony said it best.
The purpose of games was NEVER to be "necessary".
ThaPplsChoice @ Jan 31st 2007 5:18PM
Microsoft eventually admitted to erring on their controller design by making the Controller-S the default, so it isn't exactly unheard of.
copa @ Jan 31st 2007 5:17PM
Rumble is very important for collision detection. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a narrow miss and a collision using visuals.
Older games had to use distracting devices like flashing the screen red to let you know a collission occurred. Rumble is a much better way of accomplishing this.
Derbeste @ Jan 31st 2007 5:18PM
P.S.
I need to learn to spell "Necessary".
AirIntake @ Jan 31st 2007 5:39PM
@Virtua Fanboy
Microsoft made a motion sensing gamepad almost 10 years ago. I wouldn't worry about them having to play catch up with the technology. Check it out here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SideWinder#The_SideWinder_Freestyle_Pro
Mr Khan @ Jan 31st 2007 5:42PM
Amen, Virtua Fanboy (agreeing with you for once...)
If companies just shut up and swallowed their pride, SIXAXIS would have rumble, 360 controller would have motion sensing of some kind, and Wii would at least be able to output 720p (i seriously think the chip is capable of outputting that many pixels, just to not push as many polygons as the other guys, just needs a firmware upgrade, like the MS upgrade to 1080p)
Knoxximus @ Jan 31st 2007 5:45PM
Vic Vegas = best real name ever!
Nameless @ Jan 31st 2007 5:58PM
Joystiq should just get it over with and change their name to "Lolz Sony Sucks", because I don't think there's a single post where they don't bitch and moan about them or make some stupid cheap shot.
LK @ Jan 31st 2007 5:59PM
You have to agree that it is only Sony's pride that is holding the controller back. You also cannot deny the importance of rumble technology.
Rumble is something I personally consider to be extraneous. However, Sony has claimed it was something revolutionary back in '98. I remember the new PS1 packaging, and I also remember the PS1 games with both the analog and rumble features heavily used like Ape Escape, Tekken 3, or Crash Bandicoot. The DualShock even won an Emmy. Even if I do not think rumble is necessary, many people do. In fact, it was Sony who once claimed it was necessary, now they do not. Now, rumble has become something of an important standard despite what Sony fanboys and Sony itself might argue, and it was partially due to Sony itself.
Should the rumble be added today, would it be too late? No, even Microsoft had a successful redo with their Xbox controllers, why not Sony? It isn't too late.
Martez @ Jan 31st 2007 6:00PM
Rumble's not necessary- I played all my Gamecube games with a Wavebird pretty much exclusively and never noticed. That said, there are certainly plenty of times and places it increases immersion or is useful.
I don't think the PS3 controller not having rumble is that big of a deal- my only problem with it is their BS excuse for not having it.
Digi Smalls @ Jan 31st 2007 6:12PM
one thing the Wii proves is that motion control only really works WITH rumble.
the subtle rumble when passing over buttons in the UI or hitting virtual objects and borders, it brings as many sensory signals to your brain as technologically possible. its called immersion for a reason. involving your body (motion) without feedback is simply unnatural.
name one PS3 game that proves the viability of motion w/o rumble.
moving an enormous dragon in Lair, shaking off a monster in Resistance or even jumping a motorcycle in Motorstorm with the PS3's light, empty piece of plastic controller is as immersive as moving your computer mouse in the air. in fact, thats why playing Resistance on PS3 feels exactly like you're playing a PC game.
Sony dropping rumble was a BIG step back. and from a 10 year old controller design no less. adding motion control w/o it just emphasizes its loss even MORE.
lord knows people aren't gobbling up Wiis for the graphics..
.
32_Footsteps @ Jan 31st 2007 6:36PM
PPS - Derbeste, I never questioned whether rumble was necessary. I questioned whether it added anything to the play experience.
The funny thing is, I don't agree with the reasoning people give, in part because I think it's off-base.
For racing games, I find that on-screen indicators (like the fact that the whole freaking screen is shaking) is a much better indicator that you're not on the road.
As for baseball games - I might agree with that kind of thinking if rumble controllers weren't quite audible in most gaming conditions (I suppose you could turn up the television to drown them out, but you're risking permanent ear damage).
As for the idea I'm kidding myself? Funny, because I think about all the games I've loved in this generation, and rumble either didn't matter to me either way in playing, or rumble was completely absent (I mean Guitar Hero here). I'm generally too lazy to turn off rumble in games - but it's never affected my enjoyment of games either way.
Nobody's convinced me yet that rumble is actually worth it. I'm not enthused about the PS3 in general, but I think ragging on it for lack of rumble is like ragging on any console for not functioning properly underwater - maybe true, but I couldn't care less.
blakepro @ Jan 31st 2007 6:39PM
They cant change that controller after it won an Emmy!
Sony is so funny sometimes.
Rumble ads a lot to a game as long as it is done in subtle ways.
Joe @ Jan 31st 2007 10:06PM
Lets put this to a real life scenerio,
video games are meant to appeal to your senses, feel, hear, see while they obviousbly havn't mastered all sense ps3 lost the feel sense.
Saying its not a big deal is like saying we don't need to feel in real life, it's a subtle thing we wouldnt realize we miss or want till its gone.
If someone punched you in the face, or in the back you can't really see what it is you can't get the feel of pain by visuals or hearing. Its the sense of feel that comes into effect, thats how we know it hurts.
Like in games when you got shot may not realize how bad your charcter got shot without the vibration.;
I also don't undertstand how such a complex machine is missing such old tech.
james frazer @ Jan 31st 2007 6:48PM
It's easy to see that rumble has established itself when you can't notice it going on. rumble means showing the differences between right and wrong in games, giving you a physical reaction to your on-screen actions. jump off a 30 foot ledge and the controller nearly jumps out of your hand - that's bad. put the left wheel on the grass verge and feel the left hand rumble change significantly - that's bad. standing still at a vantage point to find your controller rumbling - it means you're being shot.
If Sony don't want force feedback then it's up to them. It's their console at the end of the day. to rubbish the technology is just stupid.
Rubang B @ Jan 31st 2007 6:51PM
I proclaim JodyAnthony, Morisato, and Digi Smalls the winners of this thread. Conversation: complete.
Mike @ Jan 31st 2007 7:51PM
Sony must really hate vibration for some reason...
Rubang B @ Jan 31st 2007 8:10PM
Ken Kutaragi's father was killed by a Rumble Pak that fell out of somebody's DS on top of the Empire State Building. Cut him right in half.
Saturn2888 @ Jan 31st 2007 8:25PM
I don't believe that. Sony totally ripped off Wii's motion sensing noting that it was a killer app for console gaming. What about ripping back the rumble feature, an idea they implemented midway though the Playstation's life cycle (if it ever did die) noting that Nintendo's feature was worthy of merit. Maybe they're trying to show that their Sony and that's all that matters. It really seems so to me. I mean, an asking price of a "cheap" $600 system should make anyone buy it, but as Sony said themselves, at first, only the hardcore will buy it and that's it. They said that for the first 5-10 million systems. I'm laughing at that comment right now as they've only shipped 2 million and certainly those aren't selling. Even Japan is getting many price cuts because it's just not selling, at least, not as a console.
OmahaGTP @ Jan 31st 2007 8:33PM
"Nobody's convinced me yet that rumble is actually worth it. I'm not enthused about the PS3 in general, but I think ragging on it for lack of rumble is like ragging on any console for not functioning properly underwater - maybe true, but I couldn't care less."
What? Show me a console that 'does' function properly underwater, and that analogy might then become valid.
Every couple years something is added to video games that becomes a standard. Analog joysticks for starters. Now wireless will become the norm, and probably motion sensing. Rumble is also a staple. You don't (shouldn't) take away standards. You just don't.
Morisato @ Jan 31st 2007 8:35PM
@ #24 (32_Footsteps)
Well obviously the entire matter is a subjective one, depending on who's opinion you want to take.
You claim that for racing games that a better indicator would be having the screen shake. Okay. That's fine. If you think that's better, I'm not going to argue what YOU think is best for YOU. But wouldn't it be better to have BOTH a shaking screen and a shaking controller, or more realistically, the OPTION of having both? Because if they were to have rumble, I'm sure they would implement a "rumble off" capability in the options menu.
The flaw in your arguement is that you're claiming that the rumble does not add to the gaming experience for you, but for others, as these sting of posts show, make a huge difference.
The real point is that by taking off the rumble, whether you like it, hate it, or dont care about it on or off (like you, being one who is too lazy to even shut it off in your games), turns some people away from the game all together. In the greater picture, Sony is removing options from our experience and that is a bad move. PERIOD.
If they thought it didnt add to the experience, whether true or not, they shouldnt have removed it because "some" of us feel it helps.
And for your final comment on that post, ragging on the lack of rumble IS NOT like ragging on any console for not functioning properly under water. Ragging on the PS3 for not having rumble is like ragging on a console THAT USED TO WORK PROPERLY UNDERWATER but now doesnt. Yeah sure, most of us wouldnt care if that feature was taken off, but some of us like to encase our consoles under water to keep the heating issues down (dont kill me Bill).
ArtVandelay @ Jan 31st 2007 9:20PM
Okay people this is what this basically boils down to. Immersion's patent on rumble was/is shaky at best but when the suit was brought against MS, Sony, and Nintendo MS chose to settle with Immersion and buy a LARGE stake in the company. Had MS not settled with Immersion and thrown their very large financial backing behind this company and the lawsuit; MS, Sony and Nintendo could have fought the case and probably very easily won. However, with MS backing Nintendo knew they didn't have the capital fight the MS juggernaut so they licensed rumble from Immersion/MS
Sony on the other hand has the capital to fight MS, and was not about to cut MS/Immersion a check to license rumble based on a paper thin patent case. Not to mention not wanting to subsidize the 360 with every PS3 sold.
So Joystiq it's not silly pride, and this is much more than overcoming temporary, minor embarrassment, this is big business.
Digi Smalls @ Jan 31st 2007 9:55PM
having videogame output strictly limited to on screen? well we had that down pat in the 80s.
anyone maintaining that tangibly feeling your way through picking a lock, hitting the edge of a racetrack, changing a gear, firing a maxed out weapon, getting shot from behind, getting power tackled, hitting a baseball, sustaining a critical blow or countless other applications is expressed *just as well* through purely visual stimuli...is just making excuses for Sony. period.
again, half assed (see my post above) motion control without rumble is much worse than rumble without motion control. at least in that case the controller is giving OUTput as well as input.
in our babysteps to full VR, involving other senses in our games is called 'progress'. yes it's a 'video'game but only because audio-video-tactile-game is too long. if visuals are enough for you, why not just get rid of sound too?
dunno what else to say. enjoy your one-way controller.
.
pelon @ Jan 31st 2007 10:00PM
what about boxing. Boxing is an excellent example.
Digi Smalls @ Jan 31st 2007 10:31PM
Vandelay is absolutely right, this isn't 'silly' pride, it's big business pride.
the problem is that too many of their decisions with the PS3 have been solely big business decisions. from dropping rumble, forcing Blu-ray, charging exorbitant prices but leaving out things like HD cables, launching with anemic online and a dirth of titles, to the very font on the side of the machine.
too many decisions were made for marketing bullet points (ie. big business) and not near enough decisions were made for our actual gaming benefit.
.
Cuja @ Feb 1st 2007 1:39AM
They don't want to bring "shame" onto themselves. It would be a great dishonor leading to banishment.
SuicideNinja @ Feb 1st 2007 8:56AM
I like rumble. The SIXAXIS controller feels like junk without it, especially when going to the 360 or the Wii afterwards (or before).
Quite frankly, part of what made Resistance intolerable to me is that it wasn't always obvious you were getting shot if you were focused on something else. When a grenade goes off closeby...it just isn't felt (think of the rumble+sound+visual effects used in Call of Duty). It made the weapons feel empty, and removed from the experience.
Rumble is great as merely an indicator that something is going on, or if it's simply your turn (think Uno, Texas Hold 'em, or Wii Sports). Dual motors isn't necessary, but it's nice.
I don't think the 360 needs motion control yet, because Sony hasn't really proved that the SIXAXIS motion control is worth anything. Shaking a guy off me in Resistance was more annoying than "adding to the experience". Even playing Zelda with the Wii remote doesn't really show that motion control is "oh so amazing". Aside from Wii Sports and Super Swing Golf, is anything taking notable advantage of motion control? I don't think so.
theGreenGrunt @ Feb 1st 2007 6:44AM
Guessing by the news stories coming out and decisions being made at the company, I can only guess that Sony is being run by 7 monkeys. Unintelligent jungle monkeys with a typewriter.
It must be the Japanese arrogance that stops them from admitting they made a mistake. Well several dozen mistakes, but whos counting?
NeverSage @ Feb 1st 2007 7:18AM
@Morisato,
bam, you nailed it.
I don't own a PS3, but I do own a Wii. I've been playing some old gamecube games with my wavebird. It's a shame the cords aren't longer on the normal controllers, I miss the rumble with the wireless. It just feels weird. Especially Metroid Prime
32_Footsteps @ Feb 1st 2007 10:01AM
You know, the "brings it closer to real-life experience" is the closest I've seen to a good argument for rumble. Unfortunately, the only experience I've ever had that resembled the rumble of a controller are those goofy automatic back massagers you can get in places like The Sharper Image. So a controller can realistically mimic a back massager and that's about it - you're not convincing me there.
In terms of adding dimensions to the experience, the auditory equivalent of rumble would be back in the day, when the sound was the same two or three beeps held out at different intervals. That doesn't add anything to the game, and I'm not going to delude myself into thinking it does.
I note that people are completely misunderstanding my argument. I'm not saying whether or not it's a bad move that the PS3 lacks rumble. I'm questioning why the average gamer should care.
Truth is, I don't think anyone really does. Honestly ask yourselves - is the whole rumble issue play in any way, shape or form into your planned purchases between the PS3, the Wii, and the 360? I bet in the vast majority of cases, the answer is no, or at best is a really weak point in a litany of reasons.
Think I'm crazy for not caring about rumble, but when the chips are down, pretty much nobody does. It's a gimmick, and I don't think anyone should bust Sony's stones for lacking it.
Besides, as we know, there are enough reasons other than rumble to bust on Sony.
daddycool @ Feb 1st 2007 10:21AM
Okay so we've all agreed that rumble adds very much to, and is very desirable for games such as shooters, racing and sports.
But we know, all of these Sony fanboys only like RPG's and stealth games. You don't REALLY need rumble for those, so they are making their excuses.
Sony is making their excuses because well, they are Sony. They are arrogant and dishonest and that's what they do. I just hope the games leave the code in and third party wireless controllers with come out with rumble.
Digi Smalls @ Feb 1st 2007 10:38AM
here's someone that cares about rumble:
GP: What was your reaction to the PS3 controller no longer have a rumble feature? Was adding motion sensing a worthy tradeoff?
Kojima: I really miss the rumble feature, and I already said to Mr. Kutaragi that I want the rumble feature back.
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=94010
he makes some games lots of gamers care about. in fact, many people bought the PS3 especially for the games he makes. games he himself says will suffer without rumble.
unless you're the sole voice of the average gamer (mighty presumptious of you btw), maybe you shouldn't just ignore all the other opinions you're getting here that echo all across game land.
.