Talk:DualShock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
CVG To-do:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the DualShock article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies

Is it Dual Shock or DualShock? Because on the site it's one word, albeit all caps.—Boarder8925 22:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd say go with DualShock, it returns 278K results on Google. 251K as two words. Also, I'd like to add a section for the DualShock 3 but I've seen no official info yet. Tzarius 01:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I always thought of it as two words, Dual Shock, until I saw it as one on this website as one. Looking at the back/top part of my PS2 controller, it says "DUALSHOCK 2" in all capitals, so it guess it is only one word. -Hyad 08:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC]

i have got a dualshock2 controller and some games need it because i tryed another ps2 controller and it said please insert a dualshock controller posted on 14th november 2006.


It's two words. Here's the offical Press Release from Sony. Note the spaces. "Accessories included: 'Dual Shock'2 analog controller, High capacity 8MB Memory Card"

http://www.dvdfuture.com/features.php?id=3 --Doom127

Contents

[edit] Dualshock for the Playstation 3?

I'm not extremely sure that the dualshock controller is used for the PS3 as Sony had no rights to the patents and illegally produced the Dualshock controller. Although it's button layout is the same as versions one and two, its design is radically different.--crumb 20:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing "illegal" about the Dual Shock. The only patent infringments, if I recall, were regarding rumble in the controller, not the design itself. --Doom127

And even the illeged patent infringement is rather odd -- we're talking about Newtonian physics here -- will they patent the wheel next? (Actually, I take that back -- an Australian guy already did patent the wheel... And Creative has the rights to a "multi-level hierarchal display" -- what???) --Wulf, June 7th 2006

They're not calling it the dualshock 3, they're calling it the P oo S. (with oo representing infinity(at least in japan.)) I added the info to the wiki, but it got modded.

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/ps3-controller-is-a-poos-184547.php

http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/30/sony-wouldnt-trademark-poos-would-they/

http://digitalbattle.com/2006/06/30/sony-trademarks-ps3-controller/

http://www.flickergaming.net/index.php/2006/06/30/ps3-p-oo-sd-itself/

[edit] One of the most ergonomic?!

" The DualShock is one of the most ergonomic designs of a game controller ..."

Given that the controller retains the non-analogue design of the original PS1 controller (which was good) plus two analogue sticks stuck on as an afterthought (which was incredibly bad), I disagree strongly with this statement. The positioning of the sticks is unnatural - the D-pad is where the left-hand analogue stick should be, and use of the sticks requires the thumbs to be bent in quite an unnatural way! The shoulder buttons aren't overly ergonomic either when using the analogue sticks.

The N64, Xbox, Dreamcast, Gamecube and Xbox 360 controllers all exhibit better ergonomics regarding the use of the analogue sticks, although perhaps only the N64 controller can be considered here as all the others came after the Dualshock.

If you're using the D-pad then, yes, maybe the Dualshock is more comfortable, but for analogue use, it certainly is not. What next? "The PSP analogue stick is comfortable and easy to use"? (unsigned comment by [82.26.199.92])

That's quite a matter of opinion. Whether or not you find it comfortable, the controller IS ergonomically designed (as in it was designed with ergonomics in mind when it was made, rather than just utilitarian). Whether it's THE most ergonomic design is opinion. Opinion doesn't belong on Wikipedia, the statement IS POV, which means that it needs shifting to avoid it. Daniel Davis 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of PS3 mention in this article

Is the mention of the "Dualshock 3" relevant anymore? I would vote no seeing as Sony has said that it will no longer rumble (ie. removing the "shock") Most references to the new PS3 controller simply call it "the PS3 Controller" Reference: http://ps3.ign.com/articles/705/705934p1.html --Catch-22 13:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

We have no evidence that Sony has changed the name. Until we do, we cannot assume that they have. Daniel Davis 13:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is no evidence I've seen that Sony ever gave it a name, it was always referred to as the "Playstation 3 controller." In fact, a google search for "DualShock 3" has this article on top, followed by a bunch of forum posts and speculatory articles, none of them are news articles or could be considered reliable. I don't think we can assume that "DualShock 3" is the name at all. hateless 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Sony's been traditionally naming its analog controllers "Dual Shock" ever since the original Playstation Dual Shock. Given that the PS3 controller is yet another evolution of that design, we must assume that Sony is retaining the name unless given reason to believe otherwise. Daniel Davis 00:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree. The first PS controller with analog controls was not called the DualShock, it was the PS Dual Analog Controller, and that form has its roots in the original PS controller, named "PlayStation Controller". Frankly, with the exclusion of the vibration function, I don't see it linearly descended from the DualShock. hateless 01:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Which stopped being used over ten years ago. Whether or not "you agree", we don't have any evidence that Sony's planned to change the name of its controller line. Until we get evidence to the contrary, we cannot assume they've changed it. Daniel Davis 04:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
And we cannot assume they kept it, as you do. I'll propose this uncertainty be mentioned in the article, you will notice I'm not the only one here with doubts. Can you "agree" with that? hateless 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Honestly? It's a name. I'll concede to you about this- we can just call it the "Playstation 3" controller, since we really don't have any evidence that Sony plans to stay the course and there are about a million other things that need attention, what with all the anons pouring in here from e3. Go ahead and change it. Daniel Davis 04:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Hey, maybe the DualShock 3 will actually emit an electric shock instead of using patented vibration technology!—thegreentrilby 12:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I've heard numerous sources, including IGN[1] and Joystiq[2], refer to it as the "DualShake".
That would actualy kind of make sense, considering its Wii-like motion-sensing capabilities.—thegreentrilby 20:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that someone was just making stuff up for Dual Shock 3. I do believe it's worth meantioning that there was plans for the boomerang to incorporate the Dual Shock "technology". However as meantioned there was never a Dual Shock 3 announced, nor has that name even been used in any publications to my knowledge, except as a generic name. However the fact the "Dual Shock 3" will be sans vibration, makes me believe we'll see at the very least a name change for Sony's official title. I'm changing "Dual Shock 3" Simply to "Playstation 3" as the rest of that section is perfectly up to standards, and we currently don't know if Dual Shock is flat out, or if we'll see it later on.--Kinglink 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It's called the SixaxiS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.12.210.154 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Does that mean Sony can no longer use vibration/rumble altogether?

Are there any rumours about Sony maybe licensing the tech, appealing again, or redesigning the vibration/rumble element? 'cause I really don't don't think I could live without DualShock -- I mean, bombs exploding and no jarring crash? --Wulf, June 7th 2006

Sony can't sell controllers using Immersion's rumble technology. Before the Dual Shock, Sony released early test versions of the Dual Analog that contained a single-level rumble; if Sony truly felt it neccesary, they could research their early efforts and build upon them. There is also the possibility that they could pay Immersion for a license on the more recent rumble, if they chose. -- Daniel Davis 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It is possible, Immesion just announced vibration & motion sensing. In my opinion it is likely a 3rd party will make such a controller. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About this statement...

"(However, this [that vibration would interfere with motion sensing for the PS3 controller] was proven false as the Wii controller retains its vibration function. It's speculated that vibration features are being removed because of a lost lawsuit involving vibration functions of previous PlayStation controller designs, see above)"

The Wii uses a completely different motion sensing technology than the PS3, so nobody really knows if it really would interfere or not. Should this statement be taken out?

71.192.184.19 15:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tank battle

Image:GunPS2small.jpgWhat is this comparision good for? Can someone say some words about this tank controller? --Abdull 14:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

what exactly is the point of comparing the controller to a Challenger 2 main battle tank‎ control...?? Barcode 14:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove PS3 section

The Playstation 3 section of this article should be removed as the controller is currently officially named SIXAXIS and is not related to the Dualshock in any way. --Jack Zhang 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important that people know what the next machine in the series is called, even if it's just a link. Sockatume 16:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emmy Award

I added an award section about the Emmy the Dualshock won. BeefJeaunt 19:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

While although I agree that the emmy award is very much notable, is the confusion about Sony claiming it was for the SIXAXIS actually notable, with respect to the dualshock?
I mean, yes, it was a very significant snafu; but I think the award itself is the only part that's really notable specifically in connection with the dualshock design itself. Bladestorm 20:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pressure Sensitive?

The section on the DS2 says that almost all of its buttons are pressure-sensitive. I thought just the two analog sticks were. Is there a reference for the other buttons being pressure-sentitive? --Mike Schiraldi 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, while although I don't have a supporting link off-hand, it's very easy to at least verify this for yourself. Look up Metal Gear Solid 2. You press Square to draw your gun, and if you release it quickly, then he shoots; if you slowly release it, he puts the gun back. It's an incredibly mild form of analog (I've never personally experienced any form of pressure sensitivity beyond two degrees: light and hard), but it's definitely there. It just wasn't used very much. Bladestorm 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that IGN is an acceptable source for this. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i verified this on GTA: San Andreas -- if you lightly press the accelerator button, the car will very slowly inch forward. I had never noticed this. --Mike Schiraldi 18:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of patent?

Sony's US patent U.S. Patent 6,001,014  for the DualShock shows a prototype version that included 3-axis motion sensors using three ceramic gyros that measure angular velocity, in addition to 3-axis tactile-feedback vibrators. This US patent published Dec. 14, 1999 was filed Sept. 30, 1997 and based on a Japan patent application filed Oct. 1, 1996. The motion sensors were not included in production models of the DualShock.

This seems to be a very peculiar thing to include.
Something very similar was also included on the SIXAXIS article for a little while before it was removed for being misleading.
What is the purpose of including that little bit of info?
If you actually read the article, then you'll see that the patent actually explores many different ideas that never reached the final design. (including some really intriguing ones. Make sure to both read the patent, and also look at the pictures in the pdf link)
However, while although a plethora of other technologies (including oscillation instead of rotation for vibrational feedback, complicated analog signals for elaborate force feedback, including several others) are listed in the patent, one sole element from it is presented, and held up to be unique.
What's more, if I'm reading the patent right, the phrasing is just slightly misleading. It states that the patent included a prototype that included tilt sensors, in addition to 3-axis vibrators... but, (again, if I'm reading this correctly), the motion sensors are for the 3-axis vibrators. That is, it doesn't appear that the sensors are designed for controlling the game, but rather for a more comprehensive rumble functionality.
The entry on the SIXAXIS article was very clearly to make a point: to imply that sony didn't rip off nintendo's motion-sensing (or perhaps even to imply the converse), but it looks like this entry has the same point.
So, what do you think?
Is it appropriate to take a small part of a very large document, and place undue weight on it, making it seem like it was the (sole) original stated plan? And is it appropriate to mislead in terms of the functionality? (possibly rhetorical questions here).
If there are no objections, I think I'll remove that entry in a couple of days. If there are objections, then I hope you'll be pretty specific, as well as offering a different possible phrasing, as this is certainly misleading as-is. Bladestorm 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the reference to Sony's Dual Shock patent to show the historical development of an important game controller. The Dual Shock page should not a puff piece for current Sony products. Some readers want to see the historical background of video game technology and not just final designs. The page for Invention of the telephone lists several important inventions that are obsolete now. The page for the Wright brothers points to their patent for the airplane which is obsolete now. Sony's pioneer efforts should not be obscured by later developments. Sony's US patent 6,001,014 for a motion sensing controller for a video game console was based on their Japan patent of October 1996. Nintendo's earliest patent 6,908,388 for a motion sensing controller for a game console was based on their Japan patent of May 2002. That should set the record straight on who was first. Greensburger 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Bladestorm wrote "If I'm reading this correctly, the motion sensors are for the 3-axis vibrators. That is, it doesn't appear that the sensors are designed for controlling the game, but rather for a more comprehensive rumble functionality." Look at Figure 45 in patent 6,001,014 which clearly distinguishes "angular velocity sensor 155" from the rumble motor "vibrator member 140". In Figure 46 the "gyroscopic sensor 156" is a "piezoelectric vibrator type". This is the same kind of gyro sensor that Nintendo used in Wario Ware Twisted for the GameBoy Advanced. Yes the rumble motor and the gyro both use vibration, but for very different reasons. Vibration in the gyro sensor is ultrasonic and you can't feel it. This vibration causes a tiny coriolis force in the sensor as the sensor is rotated and this tiny force creates a signal that is sent to the console to control the game. The physical principles involved are described on the Vibrating structure gyroscope page.Greensburger 05:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
"That should set the record straight on who was first." Thanks for proving my point. You are isolating one specific aspect, just to make a point.
Though, I suppose I should have known that from the line, "The motion sensors were not included in production models of the DualShock." That implies that there was a single prototype which included motion-sensing, which was later removed. Which, of course, is patently false. The motion-sensors were one of well over a dozen different variations; none of which were necessarily even developed into the "prototype" stage. The comparison to other inventions that now have obsolete concepts is immaterial. It is not true to imply that the dualshock was originally specifically intended to be a motion-sensing controller.
And yet, that's still a moot point, because you're missing something far more significant anyways.
I wasn't comparing the similarity between the gyroscope and the vibration function.
My point was that the angular velocity sensing is specifically used for correcting the complicated analog vibration signals they'd intended to send to the controller.
""Here, the microcomputer previously captures in step ST31 angular velocity detection signals S155X, S155Y, and S155Z obtained from the angular velocity sensors described above in conjunction with FIGS. 46 and 47, determines attitude of the game machine control module 120 based on the angular velocity detection signals S155X, S155Y, and S155Z, and corrects the dynamic transmission data TXD1 and TXD2 based on the attitude information.
The correction is arranged to correct the drive current applied to the coils 143A-143F of the vibrator member 140 in such a manner that the drive current has a value to generate less magnetic force in the direction to which the vibrator member 140 is attracted by the gravity, and a value to generate much magnetic force in the opposite direction."
And:
"The angular velocity detection signals S155X, S155Y, and S155Z input into the microcomputer are used as correction data based on the attitude of the game machine control module 120 described above in conjunction with steps ST22A-ST24A, ST22B-ST24B, and ST22C-ST24C."
(There are several other entries to the same effect, but I think that's enough to prove the point)
There are at least 3 or 4 entries detailing the angular velocity(tilt) sensing for vibration correction. There is one entry for sending the signal to the console so it can do the vibration correction calculations. And, finally, there's one entry mentioning the possibility of a variation where the angular velocity could be used as a game control. And that is what you were getting at. However, it isn't realized even in the patent (for comparison, the patent details the communications protocols, lists flow-charts explaining how vibration correction would work, etc., but never investigates how tilt control would work with a console). It wasn't a prototype; that's an absolute falsehood. It wasn't something that was removed just prior to production; it was never specifically planned (at least, it was never listed as planned in the patent). Even in the limited form, it would've known nothing about the current angle, but rather the change in angle (to put to rest any remote suggestion that this is at all related to a wiimote. heck, even the sixaxis's pathetic motion sensing puts this potential design to shame).
  • But, I think this is getting a bit too long. Let's recap:
  • The angular velocity sensors were a possible technology considered for vibrational correction.
  • You've all but admitted that your motivation is to "set the record straight on who was first."
  • You're still ignoring the fact that the patent itself is primarily concerned about different vibration mechanisms (some elaborate, some simple), with added information for communications protocols (which, incidentally, don't include any angular velocity communications at all)
  • The description of the patent is misleading. The part you're referring to never made it to the dualshock, and was never even (verifiably) seriously considered for it, and thus doesn't belong in an article specifically on the dualshock.
I'm removing it for now. Go ahead and try to make an argument for why it should be restored. Explain why it's okay to be misleading about the content of a patent. Explain why it's okay to mislead about the primary function of considered sensors was, even when they're explicitly described as being for vibrational correction. Explain why it's neutral to admit that you're trying to "set the record straight on who was first." To be fair, I'm just going to "comment" the section out for now, so if you somehow manage to make a good argument, it can be very easily restored. Bladestorm 08:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Bladestorm is correct that the gyro described in the patent was not designed for game control. In the middle of column 34 the patent suggests the angular velocity sensor signals S155 for the attitude of the controller be sent to the console game machine 27. But then it says these signals are for "correcting the vibration data". Sony almost had a motion sensor controller in 1996, but failed to see the opportunity. I removed the comment from the article. Greensburger 17:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for being so aggressive. Bladestorm 20:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Use outside of PlayStation

I've seen the controller used on numerous systems other than the PlayStation. I personally use mine on my PC, I saw one on a TV show recently being used to control a small submersible vehicle, and a quick web search brought up a guide on how to use it with, what looks like, a completely different submersible robot ( http://www.instructables.com/id/EQOFTZ06IXEP286QUQ/ ). Could information on this kind of thing be added to the main page? --87.114.128.59 23:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] merge with Dual Analog Controller

This proposal seems to move in the opposite direction of previous proposals to cut the SIXAXIS stuff out, so that the article focuses on the DualShock brand. If a merge is agreed upon, I think that the article should be renamed, depending on how the subject is framed. If it focuses on the Dual Analog, the DualShock, and DualShock 2, we should name the article something like PlayStation Analog Controller , as they all share the model name "Analog Controller". (The SIXAXIS model name reads "Wireless Controller".) We could also shift the article to be an overview of the whole PlayStation Controller line, documenting variations from the original SCPH-1010 through the SCPH-1080, and the like. Dancter 16:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is only an opinion, and I certainly wouldn't argue over it if anyone disagrees with me, but if it's merged, I think it should still be called "DualShock", simply because that's the thing that people are most likely to search for. Bladestorm 19:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It's too misleading that way, and seems to skew the content too heavily to certain elements, such as the rumble. The statement I recently revised in the lead is evidence of that. The SIXAXIS is not a DualShock controller. Neither is the "Dual Analog". (Well, to be technical, I think DualShock was officially styled, DUALSHOCK, as somewhat of a precursor to the all-caps PLAYSTATION 3 styling.)
Looking at the Dual Analog Controller article a second time, I'm actually not in favor of a merge, but a split. Or at the very least, an overhaul. Develop a consistent scheme for organizing PlayStation accessory articles. We could have separate articles each controller: Dual Analog Controller, DualShock, DualShock 2, and Sixaxis (it's overwhelming the other content in the PlayStation 3 accessories article), and keep an overall summary article as a hub. We could set up a PlayStation accessories article, to bring together things such as the Sony Flightstick, the PocketStation, and the Arcade Joystick. Dancter 20:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/u/a/Talk%7EDualShock_35da.html"