Immersion survey suggests Sony better get ready to rumble
By Evan Blass 
posted September 25th 2006 10:15PM
posted September 25th 2006 10:15PM
Not only does the (completely unbiased) poll report that 72% of the 1,075 respondents agree vibration feedback enhances their game experience, it goes on to note that 59% of those surveyed would prefer rumble on the PS3 controller, while only 8% care about motion / tilt sensing (sorry, Nintendo). As if these numbers didn't paint a clear enough picture of the message Immersion is trying to convey, two further questions spell it out even more explicitly: when asked if the lack of rumble capabilities would affect their buying decisions (apparently 74% of those polled weren't even aware of the "no rumble" policy -- clearly no Engadget readers amongst that bunch), 5% said that it would definitely cause them not to buy a PS3 and 32% claimed that they were less likely to pick one up for this reason and this reason alone. Now obviously Immersion knew exactly the results that it wanted before it conducted this "study," and probably phrased the questions in order to get the most desirable data set, but even non-statistics majors like ourselves could have figured out that gamers accustomed to the fun of Dual Shock would be in for a letdown the first time they picked up a rumble-free SIXAXIS controller.
Okay, Sony, the cards are on the table, and even if these numbers are skewed, you know full well that you can't be the only player in the game without a little vibration action going on. So what's it gonna be: are you going to keep hoping that some appeals court finally overturns the numerous prior decisions against you, or are you going to shell out some dough just like Microsoft and Nintendo did, and finally give the majority of your target audience what it wants? To us, it doesn't really seem like much of a choice at all.
basically everyone who said get over no rumble is a Sony fan boy.
at least half the people who were upset about fit into one of three categories:
1. Xbox fanboy
2. Nintendo fanboy
3. Sony haters
Everyone get over it, the best way to show what you feel is with what you purchase. If Sony's sales aren't high they may not even notice it's due to the lack of feedback in the controller, could be price, low product volume, lack of promised features, oddly shaped box, etc.
Im actually one of those that won't be getting the system because of the lack of rumble and because of the price.
What's the point of buying 4 controllers if in the future I GUARANTEE you Sony will release a rumble enabled controller.
I won't be getting PS3 until a very long time if ever. I'll however be picking a Wii to sit along side my 360 this fall and winter.
Albert
why donbt they get it usually when one companies are sued by others they tend to shy away from working with them
So, you kinda misquoted the study.
"It goes on to note that 59% of those surveyed would prefer rumble on the PS3 controller, while only 8% care about motion / tilt sensing (sorry, Nintendo)"
The section you're referring to says very clearly, would you rather have rumble and motion sensing, motion sensing, rumble, or neither. Amazingly, most people chose both. Along with this, the study says multiple times that people have little experience with motion sensing technology. But they have a lot (and good) experience with rumble.
The main reason I mentioned UK Patent law is because of section 48 of the Patent Act of 1977, which basically stops a company from being a patent troll.
In the case of your lawn, you're using it. A patent troll doesn't make use of a patent except to enforce it when infringed upon, hence why section 48 exists. If the world worked by UK patent law, Immersion would have to do something with their patent as well as what they do now. I'll make up an example. If I have an invention (lets say a hoverboard), and patent it in the UK, then I started manufacturing them and marketing them, I am protected, because I am using my patent. If I bought the patent for the hover technology from someone else, then didn't do anything until someone infringed on the copyright (ie, being a patent troll), then the Comptroller can decide to let others to use the licence if they apply.
Without something like section 48, someone could invent a method of turning seawater into a fuel source, then sell their patent to an oil company, who can then sit on the patent safe in the knowledge that no-one will be able to use their patent.
Well, that's if what little understanding I have of UK patent law is accurate (which it very well might not be).
Also Bill, I did say that Immersion told Sony that a rumbling, tilt sensing controller could work on the PS3, ie that in your words, "the tilt==no rumble thing is crap."
Yes indeed, a patents' sole purpose is to grant inventors ownership, allotting them all and exclusive rights to the production, sale or use of their patent. It is in fact a key beneficial ideal in the promotion of invention and progress. However, I can't help but ethically feel that the process of creating, or buying, general and vague patents for the sole purpose of, later, aggressively perusing copyright infringers, to be an abuse of intellectual property law.
We all like to exploit loopholes in the system from time to time, however, with the recent rash of patent trolling cases, it has become apparent that the rules need to be reconsidered. If a patent owner holds a patent, it should be enforced, yes. But pre-litigation negotiations should commence (1) more immediately than a 7 year lead time; (2) before said product has already been vastly disseminated and popularized in the public eye; and (3) before the patent infringing features have become a hallmark of that product. Immersion sued on a continuation application that, until near the patents expiration date, had gone forgotten, yet placed Immersion in a uniquely advantageous position for aggressive action against two of the largest companies in the world.
Another currently glaring fault of intellectual property law is the legal extortion that takes place during the negotiation phase of a case, which essentially, is what the UK version attests to correct. The ability of the patent owner to *legally* extort more money pre-litigation with the threat of not only a lawsuit -- at the end of which they'll have to pay up anyway -- but also the denial of the licensed patent rights thereafter.
There are also companies that file patents so their own technology will remain dominant, and again, this is also a perfect example of a poor use of patents as a whole. Not only are these examples bad practice, but they stifle the advancement that patents were initially created to promote. A patents *real* purpose should be to protect the owner when selling or producing a product based upon said patent. All together, in my opinion, it's yet another antiquated law that needs to be rethought or reworked in the wake of a new age and generation (*cough*DMCA*cough*).
~s
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but your statements not factual. First of all, Nintendo didn't put rumble feedback in the Wavebird because if they had, it would've killed the battery life, not because they made a deal with Immersion:
From IGN, "Most importantly, the WaveBird has no rumble effect. Vibration feedback requires a motor, which sucks battery energy like nobody's business. You will see a few wireless controllers hit the streets this year with the rumble feature. However, the battery life always bottoms out to two or three hours with the effect turned on. One of Nintendo's main goals was designing a long-lasting controller, so vibration went out the window early."
http://gear.ign.com/articles/361/361933p1.html
Show me something that backs up your cliam and I'll send you an apology.
Secondly, Nintendo does not pay licensing fees to Immersion for the Wii remote. They're simply using the same technology they created ten years ago for the N64, thereby remaining free of any litigation from Immersion:
From Next-gen, "Nintendo has managed to side-step ever becoming an Immersion licensee, and has thus far avoided being sued by the company for patent infringements. The Wii controller will have Nintendo's own version of force feedback."
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3687&Itemid=2
and from in article containting an interview with Immersion CEO Victor Viegas on spong.com, "There were two key issues we wanted outlining, not least the fact that Nintendo has never been mentioned in the case(s) Immersion Corp brought against Sony and Microsoft. Given that Nintendo executives have stated, on the record in the public domain for years that rumble functionality was their innovation, an innovation subsequently plagiarised by both Sony and Microsoft, it seems strange that they were never implicated in any case. 'Well, Sony’s PlayStation and Microsoft’s Xbox pads work in very similar, almost identical ways,' explained Viegas, 'so it made sense to pursue both companies that were infringing our patents, using dual motors in unison. It was a total of, I think, 16 claims across two patents.' Yes, it does make sense, but again, why not include Nintendo, especially given the fact that Nintendo claims the feedback technology employed in all modern games controllers is its own? 'We never analysed Nintendo products.' Is the more-than surprising answer offered. 'There is, I believe, a difference in the technologies used but we never investigated those of Nintendo.'"
http://news.spong.com/article/8511/World+Exclusive:+How+Nintendo+escaped+the+case+that+might+see+Sony+pay+Microsoft+for+every+PlayStation+product+sold?cb=754
So, there you have it. Nintendo created the technology and will never have to pay anyone for it and have figured out a way to make it consume less power so they can put it in their wireless Wii controllers. Immersion has nothing on Nintendo, period.
Ask 1 year ago how many would love playing their games on a touch screen .... I bet there wouldn't be more than 10 %. Still the nintendo DS made its way on the portable market and crushed the so-powerful PSP.
Why ? Because current gamers were not their only goal. They sold DS to girls, to seniors. Current gamers had fun too, but after nintendo showed them a new way of gaming.
I didn't give a damn about this touch and play thing when it was announced. Now, I wouldn't buy a game that is not using this wonderful way to play.
I would consider myself an avid gamer... Pretty much owning every system that came into fruition up until the PS2... After that system, Sony got the Axe in my book.
But this isnt about that, this is about Rumble in a controller. And I do have to say as a gamer, I would completely miss the rumble of a controller in my hands as I got Injured in a game, or the controller letting me know it was my turn on Texas Holdem without having to look at the screen.
The benefits are countless on things that can be done with Rumble in a controller, and I completely think it's a mistake to not include it on this generations consoles. I know MANY people who are turned off about the way Sony handled this.
So, Immersion comissioned this study from Ipsos, a market research company. It was a custom project, so how can you guys call it unbiased? On any comissioned study, the client (in this case Immersion) can direct the survey questions and the sample of people invited to take the survey, etc. This is anything BUT "unbiased." If Ipsos did the study on their own with being "paid" by Immersion, then it would be more credible.