4 years ago today...

[impetus]

4 years ago today, Johnny Chung Lee unveiled his absolutely MIND-BLOWING 3D/VR/head-tracking tech (watch the vid). Not only was it the most immersive and innovative gaming tech ever demonstrated, it was cheap to produce as well, using existing technology and literally turning it backward. Microsoft promptly hired Chung which seemed a good omen, but instead we got the Kinect. Chung eventually left the company. Meanwhile Sony put out their passionless Wii knockoff and Nintendo is still grappling with them there newfangled whats-its like "internet" and "high definition". Amazingly still no Chung-VR, despite the fact that all three console makers have developed new, far more expensive, and far less impressive hardware. WHY IS THIS GOLDMINE UNTAPPED??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3-eiid-Uw

[mankrip]

Well, let me see some cons:

- Stupid people would keep their face glued directly to the screen most of the time, to keep the image zoomed in.
- As he said, this effect wouldn't work for other people looking at the screen, so no offline multiplayer games without split-screen would benefit from it.
- 3D TVs still weren't a mass product at the time. With 3D TVs becoming more popular, this may become more interesting.

[impetus]

- 3D TVs still weren't a mass product at the time. With 3D TVs becoming more popular, this may become more interesting.

I think you misunderstood one of the major points - it achieves 3-D effect on a regular screen.

[mankrip]

It achieves 3D navigation, but not scene depth. With 3D TVs one can notice depth in a single static frame, without moving around.

[Specially Cork]

It's incredibly limited.

Imagine it in an FPS. Just moving your head isn't going to help you lean in and out of cover (like peeking round the side of a box) - it's just going to let you look at your cover from a slightly different angle. You'd literally have to move your whole body in a 1:1 relation with what's on screen - which isn't going to work because you'll no longer be looking at your TV. For the same reason, physically moving forward and backward isn't going to help you progress through the level - because you'll move a couple of feet forward in the real world then hit your TV. Besides, the illusion is lost once an object moving toward you becomes so close it moves off screen (like the target in the video)

[DanteJay]

You'd literally have to move your whole body in a 1:1 relation with what's on screen - which isn't going to work because you'll no longer be looking at your TV.

Not necessarily. The sensitivity could be user specific, so a head turn to your shoulder could turn the camera enough to a 5 o'clock or 7 o'clock perspective. But remember, just like in real life, you would still need to turn your player in game to see directly behind you. While not for every game, I could really see this idea enhancing an online match of halo. While your cursor is aimed at someone and you're firing away, a slight turn of your head would also allow you to see over your shoulder, while still engaged in battle.

Alas, given the track record of how most devs use motion controls, I'd rather this idea stay dead. This way I won't suffer neck cramps after I've played PS4 for a couple of hours.

[impetus]

I'm susprised by the resistance to this, but I think I get it now. I agree this would be gimmicky in a Kinect-like setting where you're jumping and dodging around like a crack fiend, which I suppose is what people might immediately think about now. If you're constantly aware of the mechanics and gimmickry and trying to work through and around them, then it's a failure. That's (partially) why so many Kinect/Wii/Move games play so poorly.

But consider it done well.

What I have in mind is much more natural. Much more toned down than, say, Kinect. Consider a traditional first person game. Sitting down, controller (or mouse/kb, etc) in hand. Even though you are stationary, your head and body always moving subtly. The screen on the other hand is stationary. But with the head tracking, the subtle pan and tilt is captured and represented on the screen. Yes, this is a subtle thing. That's actually the point - it should come off as natural. In fact, I wouldn't necessarily even consider it part of the controls so much as a way for the screen to simply have a more immersive pop to it. If in fact the player becomes more engaged and turns his head reactively, that's a bonus.

Unlike the other motion-play technologies of the past few years, this isn't something that should replace traditional controls, but simply augment the experience in a revelatory new way. Done correctly, this would be something you could simply turn on or off at will because it doesn't dominate the play format - it just enhances it.

(I have a similar view about 3D movies - ideally you should be able to toggle 3D on the fly just like subtitles or audio tracks, but the 3D should be done well enough that it's not necessary).

[DanteJay]

But consider it done well.

What I have in mind is much more natural. Much more toned down than, say, Kinect. Consider a traditional first person game. Sitting down, controller (or mouse/kb, etc) in hand. Even though you are stationary, your head and body always moving subtly. The screen on the other hand is stationary. But with the head tracking, the subtle pan and tilt is captured and represented on the screen. Yes, this is a subtle thing. That's actually the point - it should come off as natural. In fact, I wouldn't necessarily even consider it part of the controls so much as a way for the screen to simply have a more immersive pop to it. If in fact the player becomes more engaged and turns his head reactively, that's a bonus.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with what your saying. If used to "enhance" the experience like your example, great! The problem I have is that in the real world Nintendo is going to make me fly Link's bird around with my head. And while I can't speak for others, this degrades the experience for me.

[Specially Cork]

You'd literally have to move your whole body in a 1:1 relation with what's on screen - which isn't going to work because you'll no longer be looking at your TV.

Not necessarily. The sensitivity could be user specific, so a head turn to your shoulder could turn the camera enough to a 5 o'clock or 7 o'clock perspective. But remember, just like in real life, you would still need to turn your player in game to see directly behind you. While not for every game, I could really see this idea enhancing an online match of halo. While your cursor is aimed at someone and you're firing away, a slight turn of your head would also allow you to see over your shoulder, while still engaged in battle.

Alas, given the track record of how most devs use motion controls, I'd rather this idea stay dead. This way I won't suffer neck cramps after I've played PS4 for a couple of hours.

If I look over my shoulder I'm not looking at the TV, and if you want anything less than 1:1 tracking that's just head gestures and already can be done with Kinect.

There's also the "through-the-window" effect. Look at a window and turn your head to the left - you end up obscuring more of what's on your left. The only way to see more is to lean-in then look left. You'd have to do this in your FPS game, and the immersion would be lost because you need to move your head in relation to your tv-window, not the physical world on-screen (i.e. you're playing the game through a window).

There's also the right analog stick, which is going to destroy the 3D effect every time you pivot.

Then there's eye-tracking, which would be necessary to complete the experience but was never mentioned and requires more expensive tech. (...Kinect!)

[impetus]

Alas, given the track record of how most devs use motion controls, I'd rather this idea stay dead. This way I won't suffer neck cramps after I've played PS4 for a couple of hours.

That's the crux of it. The last thing we need is bloatware waggle crap.

There's also the "through-the-window" effect. Look at a window and turn your head to the left - you end up obscuring more of what's on your left. The only way to see more is to lean-in then look left. You'd have to do this in your FPS game, and the immersion would be lost because you need to move your head in relation to your tv-window, not the physical world on-screen (i.e. you're playing the game through a window).

There's also the right analog stick, which is going to destroy the 3D effect every time you pivot.

I guess we'd have to really see it in action to make that determination, but - and I'm shooting from the hip here - I don't see any reason why the aimstick and head tracking couldn't work in concert. The aimstick would still do the heavy lifting.

Then there's eye-tracking, which would be necessary to complete the experience but was never mentioned and requires more expensive tech. (...Kinect!)

Gotta shoot this one down. While playing a game, you simply will not - and should not - move your eyes around in this manner because they will be focused on the screen. Even if that weren't the case, the basic premise of your argument is sketchy. The effect will only work if it's natural, what you described would be a conscious and tiring/dizzying mechanic. Literally, moving your head (in reality) is what changes your field of vision. Moving your eyes does not - everything you can see is within your peripherals. Eye tracking is not significant because it occurs within your field of vision.

[mankrip]

While I'm not convinced this would work in action gaming, I think it could be pretty effective for window management, and probably for 3D modelling too.