I'm skeptical that the trackpads will provide the same precision feel that a good analog stick can do, even with the haptics.
But I'm not going to count it out. I'll reserve all judgement until I get to try it. And that's the only real sticking point for me on this announcement; everything else about this controller I love.
The one thing that frustrates me with the 360 joysticks is positioning my thumb not at an extreme but not at neutral either. This option seems like it will eliminate that entirely.
For that alone I'm very interested, obviously also the fact that they're trying to make things quite open.
Laptops all moved from nipples to trackpads a long time ago, surely if analog sticks could provide higher resolution then that wouldn't have happened, or there would have been a move back?
I'd have agreed with you once, but I broke the trackpad on a ThinkPad a couple of years ago and out of apathy i switched to the nipple mouse and I haven't looked back. It takes more practice but it has excellent precision and infinite movement. The trackpad remains broken and unplugged.
I was assuming the opposite. Keyboard and Mouse is usually regarded as superior to joysticks for FPS so I assumed they were trying to bridge the gap and come up with something more mouse-like?
If it were me doing it, I would use the trackpad and the trackpad buttons. (I'm not sure, but I believe each trackpad is "pressable" and has multiple buttons, replicating a d-pad)
I would tap and drag for little and precise movements, swipe for fast movements, and press the button for default movement. With some training, it can become pretty natural.
I've had several ThinkPads, and I've always disabled the trackpad in the BIOS as soon as I got a new one - it's totally unnecessary when you have the TrackPoint. It's so much faster and more precise. Like amalcon said, I have no idea how anyone can use a trackpad. Whenever I watch a friend use one, or use one myself, it's like the mouse is moving in slow motion compared to me using the TrackPoint. It does take some practice, but it's well worth the investment, just like how learning to touch type pays off in the long run.
> On thinkpads you can press the middle mouse button (below the spacebar) then press the trackpoint up or down.
Yep, and you can also click and release the middle mouse button, then separately mouse up or down. Interestingly, I have only been able to get either this OR the press then scroll behavior you described working on Windows (by toggling a setting), but in Linux you can have both enabled at the same time.
Bizarrely, Linux seems to support much of the trackpoint/trackpad stuff on thinkpads better than Windows does. I use to not be able to configure the trackpad how I wanted on Windows, but the Synaptics driver for Linux gave me plenty of possibilities.
I have a T61 thinkpad, and love it. I use Linux on it solely. I have compiz bound to those forward and back arrows as cube_rotate_left and right. And I also run 8 desktops. Makes my world so much simpler in terms of organization of programs and flow.
Trackpoint is great, but I've been trying to move away from its use. I've found after frequent use, my finger tip gets irritated- I suspect mechanics similar to the development of a blister are at play- and they haven't been good for my hand overall. I've forced myself to use trackpads and mice now, because they are much lower impact on my hand. I can keep my hand completely relaxed when using a trackpad.
I have, and I strongly prefer the TrackPoint--by a whole order of magnitude. I never have to keep my fingers off home row.
I do use a tiling window manager and bindings like Vrome/Vimperator, so my use case is probably atypical. My mouse usage is limited to when I deem it absolutely necessary; I hate physical/mental context switching, and bringing my hand from keyboard to TrackPad/mouse/whatever is a huge context switch.
I have always felt that the TrackPoint (on a HP Elitebook here) is difficult to access from the right or left index because of its place between G and H.
I would use it so much more if it was between H and J.
How do you stretch your finger towards the middle of the keyboard with no issue? Stretching just to type a letter is fine for me (think Y, H or B), but staying on the TrackPoint is hard.
I used an Apple one (one of the large ones) on a 2010 MBP. It was error prone and made my fingers numb after a while. Not only that, the full pad depression to click is awkward and configuring sensitivity for tap to click was never just right.
Possibly a shocking statement here but I went from a top end 2010 MBP to a 2009 T400 running windows 7 and am much happier as a whole, even though I have my head in UNIX machines a lot.
Strongly disagree. If you're just browsing or clicking on things, sure, the Apple trackpad is great. For playing games, the trackpoint is better. For coding or doing any sort of mixture of typing/pointing, the trackpoint is better.
Not all. Lenovo still provides eraser nub-style pointers on many models. I personally find them to be more accurate at high speeds than a touchpad.
I actually have no idea how people can use touchpads. You need a huge one to be able to go corner-to-corner in one swipe and still have reasonable accuracy.
I hate touchpads. I use an external mouse with my Macbook. I have a Dell D830 with the nub pointer and it was so much easier to use, especially considering that you don't have to remove your hands from the keyboard and your finger doesn't need to cross 3 inches of space to move across the screen.
I've always been confused by this argument. I can reach my trackpad with my right thumb without moving any of my other fingers off of the home row. Is this an unusual amount of flexibility?
Maybe. I have long fingers and decent dexterity but find thumbing a trackpad way less accurate than using a trackpoint. This may be a matter of practice, but there's still more hand movement required even to get my thumb over the trackpad.
This is one of those use cases that I'd be interested in seeing some research on. Personally, it depends a great deal on what I am doing, but I often use my thumbs to do minor navigations when within a document. Particularly because I have some RSI issues and using my thumb seems to less of an aggravation. Milage, I'm sure, varies, but I suspect that there is a subset of folks that at least use their thumbs a bit.
Not sure where that argument comes from -- it's certainly not one I've ever made. I personally really prefer the nub over touch pad, but it has nothing to do with not having to move my fingers away from the keyboard.
I mean, given the option of a physical mouse, I will always prefer that over both nub and track pad -- and the physical mouse requires the most movement away from the keyboard (of course, to avoid all three mouse input methods I use keyboard shortcuts when possible).
Anyway, my reasons for preferring the nub are:
* Less movement required on the actual input device. Just a slight tilt of the finger can move the mouse cursor from anywhere to anywhere else.
* Higher accuracy. This one may be subjective, only personal applicable, and/or biased, but I think the nub just makes it so much easier to navigate compared to the touch pad.
But if you're using two finger scrolling this doesn't work so well. Also, while I can use my thumbs they aren't long enough for me to easily be able to access all corners of the trackpad with one thumb.
I don't get that argument either. My main case for the eraser-nub-mouse is that I don't have to physically move my finger over and over again. It goes like this, put finger in one corner, drag finger, reach end of touch surface, lift finger, put finger again on the opposite side, drag again... until you reach destination.
Yeah but to be fair the lenovo track pad is bad compared to a macbook trackpad and they are made by the same manufacturer. So on the thinkpad it makes sense that people use the nub when the trackpad experience is pretty bad.
I was a nub user. Then I got a Macbook Pro. So far this is the only touchpad I can use. The IBM and Lenovo Thinkpads are the only nubs I can use also. Everything else feels terrible and unusable.
I've played 1000+ hours of Minecraft on my Thinkpad. That would be torture with a touchpad but it's a joy with the nub (which is basically a very small joystick). Why they went with touchpads over traditional dual-joystick input with community managed zero configuration mouse-keyboard emulation I really don't understand.
And I've played a fair amount of Minecraft on my MacBook. I find the trackpad to be quite nice. I've gotten to where I can play most FPS games and feel like I'm very close to where I would be if I were using a mouse.
Keep in mind you can always just plug in a 360 controller, so if you have one of each, you can switch between the Steam and 360 controller depending on the game and your preference.
I'm glad they went a different route, it opens up more options for gamers and developers.
That's the big thing for me here. They're obviously trying to bridge the gap between PC gaming and console gaming, but they aren't doing it at the expense of existing control schemes - I have no doubt that you can use a bluetooth keyboard + mouse, or a Steam controller, or an Xbox 360 controller to play your games. The Steam controller doesn't have to solve every problem, because it isn't an exclusive input mode for the platform. If it works on 95% of the games, that's a huge win and good enough for most people.
I think the challenge is Valve is trying to create one-size-fits-all inputs with those trackpads. They have to work as joysticks and pointing devices, since Valve sells both console games and PC games on their platform.
As a PC gamer, I'm super-excited for this gamepad because it will beat the ever-loving-crap out of a joystick for games that depend on a pointing-device (strategy, RTS, no-aim-assist-FPS games). It might not measure up to a mouse, but it could still provide a "good-enough" experience unlike a thumbstick.
The nice thing is that a high-DPI trackpad can act as both a relative-input joystick (movement based on how far from center you are) and an absolute-input pointing device (movement based on absolute position in the device's input field).
Joysticks can do this, too, but their DPI is frequently nowhere even close to acceptable for this kind of work - they tend to be somewhere in the 200-400 DPI range, when your average mouse tends to be capable of input at several thousand DPI; if the touchpad resolution is good enough, then I think they're going to have a winner on their hands.
Problem with an absolute-input pointing device in this case is your thumb. In the world of ultra-high DPI touch input, your thumb is a veritable cudgel.
A gazillion text messages have been sent by thumbs hunting for keys. This won't be a perfect interface, but it will beat the ever-loving-crap of trying to use a joystick for a pointing-device's job.
>> I think the challenge is Valve is trying to create one-size-fits-all inputs with those trackpads.
The problem is that you can't.
There are just too many different type of gamers having different requirements. Given Valve's lineage, their core audience are the FPS/PC type gaming crowd who are used to keyboards and mice. And this controller makes sense for that audience.
While I'm interested in the Steam Machines, I would never buy this controller for myself, because I'm into fighting games and old-school console type games. And even though the Steam Controller isn't for me, the great thing about Steam Machines is that they're still computers at heart, which means that I can probably use just about any other controller out there if it has USB connectivity and identifies it as a standard HID.
The goal is to provide the some precision that a mouse can, not replicate sticks... If that were the case, they would have just put sticks on the thing.
You can trivially replicate joystick behavior with a touchpad - note how the controller has a raise "home" circle in the middle. This is almost certainly so that it can be used as a joystick, where the input is based on how far from center the thumb is, rather than the thumb's absolute position on the touchpad.
Albeit without any of the tactile value of the tension of an analog stick. [1] Nor an absolute, physically constrained, "max" position: where the stem of an analogue stick is pressed against the edge of its container. [2]
A trackpad seems like it will very easily allow your thumb to drift from a position of sending maximally-distant-from-center input to not registering any input. That's going to be a huge usability problem.
And making assumptions about what a user might have meant should a thumb just happen to slide off the edge of a trackpad is going to be problematic. [3]
[1] What would you call a 360 or dual shock controller with analog sticks that have no tension-to-center anymore? Broken.
[2] Think of how often you feel/hear that little analog stick "clack". Think of how often you're pressing against that physical boundary to ensure maximal-distance input. Each of those moments is an opportunity for a trackpad to present a problem. And those moments are awfully common. It's likely they're more common than not.
[3] did their thumb slide off, or did they raise it? did i slide off on accident or on purpose? etc
I'm guessing that that's what the outer circle is for, right? Your thumb feels the ridge, and that section of the pad is interpreted as maximal-distance input.
I'm not convinced how well that ridge is going to work over the course of, say, an FPS or platformer game session. For a strategy game or lower-pressure situation it's quite likely just fine. But for action games... maybe?
But the lack of tension is going to be a bummer for action games regardless.
We tried that relative-to-an-absolute scheme on our iPhone FPS and it was very confusing. The best scheme was a relative-to-a-relative center where the origin would "follow" the thumb, but then we had a full screen to do that.
The problem with a relative-to-an-absolute scheme (even one with the little raised circle) is you have no idea where the thumb is until you touch the control but then it's too late.
Not saying it can't be done, it's just a little bit tricky.
Realistically I think fans of those genres will be sticking to the current approach of using a PS3/XBox pad on their machine. Valve may have to sell a 1st-party knock-off of such a controller just for completeness.
This device is for Valve's massive library of PC games that need a keyboard and mouse that are normally unplayable in the living room (unless your living room includes a desk, in which case it's not really a living room now is it?)
I'm skeptical and I'm going to stay that way until I actually get to try it because of the haptic feedback, but..
The face button layout also gets to me. That's going to require some serious mental gymnastics to re-wire 20+ years of face button layout muscle memory to use this in some games (edit: especially platformers).
I'm thinking Valve basically wrote off retrogaming with this device - it's after the modern genres that are completely split between the PC-style mouse-and-keyboard and the console-style thumbsticks-and-shoulders.
A retrogaming pad would be nice as an additional peripheral to sell, but realistically you can use any existing bluetooth gamepad with Steam.
Good point: Since it works w/ any gamepad, in theory, you should be able to get a nice bluetooth version of your SNES pad and have it Just Work. If you're already playing those kinds of games, you might already have one for your computer anyway.
The bigger story for me is that Valve has managed to once again troll its fans with a "3" announcement. This is starting to have flavours of Stockholm Syndrome.
If they wanted a launch title that would drag in the biggest market, I reckon Left 4 Dead 3 or Portal 3 would pull in more people (both had large mass media marketing campaigns and are more recent). Or hey, all three ;)
The "worth the weight" thing is a joke. Theres an urban legend that says that the HL3 release gets postponed by 1 month every time someone makes a joke about Gabe Newell being fat.
I'm actually pretty optimistic about this. It's a big divergence from current couch input schemes, and the open nature of it might mean that it'll be improved for ergonomics and whatnot. It's got some interesting promise.
Best of all, worst case, I can fall back to my trusty 360 controllers and use those without a hitch, so even if this is a disaster, it doesn't sink the platform (as can be the case with other platforms)
I'm trying to be optimistic about it. I like that they are going somewhere new with controllers. Already I can imagine those Y and B buttons not being easy/natural to get to. and of course not having at least one actual joystick is going to throw me off. (I game a lot with my Macbook Pro and I've gotten very very good with the mac trackpad, but I still like my WASD keys for the left hand). But again, all of these are my own issues and I'm very much willing to give this joystick a shot.
I was a bit disappointed until I read the bit about hardware hack-ability. Accessibility in games is an oft ignored topic. The open nature of these controllers will hopefully lead to more games being playable by disabled gamers as people extend the hardware. Of course, the flip side of that coin is people modifying the controller to gain an unfair advantage.
Very true! When it releases, I may try to use data from an Eye Tribe (http://theeyetribe.com/) to drive the right trackpad output. The added cost seems like a valid deterrent against people just trying to cheat, and a bearable cost for someone who wants to play games but is incapable of using a traditional controller.
If you look at the sample controller mapping, you might note that all the abxy buttons are mapped to communication functions, so I'd say they aren't intended to be natural to get to (much like the start button on other gamepads).
The ergonomic buttons like the triggers and rear buttons are best for actions you need to perform while moving. There's six of those in total. Compare to WASD and a common 3-button mouse setup: the mouse buttons, shift/ctrl, and the easy-to-reach keys 1234EQZXCF. So yeah, you won't have as many quick-reach keys available to you. I would grade the keyboard keys as a bit harder to reach though because you have to take fingers off movement to hit them.
I would say I am optimistic as well because, having been a dedicated "Big Picture" user for the past few months, it is clear Valve has put a lot of thought into this transition. However, what bothered me about the controller is that it doesn't seem to actually be that different.
I don't see how this markedly improves over current controllers and their integration. The key genres for which the current controllers don't work, such as RTS, don't seem to be that much better off with this solution. Maybe its just a lack of imagination on my part, but I will have to see more to be convinced.
The first game they show a sreenshot of is Civilization. I'm sure RTS was one of the main genres they tested the controller with.
From the announcement:
> Even the older titles in the catalog and the ones which were not built with controller support. (We’ve fooled those older games into thinking they’re being played with a keyboard and mouse, but we’ve designed a gamepad that’s nothing like either one of those devices.)
(Yes, i know Civ isn't an RTS, but it is a strategy game that is unplayable on a stardard controller)
Civilization is a turn based strategy game. The "RT" (real-time) part is what really makes gamepads unsuitable for RTS. I play Starcraft 2 and I can't imagine how you could possibly select individual units and pull them back when they are taking damage. Show me someone doing blink stalker micro with a gamepad and I will eat my words.
i'd bet some dollars on dota 2 and tf2 working at near-mouse+keyboard efficiency - those are their main money printing machines right now (...besides the cut sales) and they can't afford to segment their player base by controller, so they must have something in store.
DotA was the main title I was thinking about. If they can make DotA playable with this then I think they are on to something special. DotA is intimidating enough using K+M, if they break down the hotkey barrier with an intuitive controller, they stand to gain a lot.
I imagine it'd take some practice getting used to, but if they implemented both pads affecting the same cursor at different ratios, i.e. one for broad movements and one for more precise control, I would think someone who got used to it could be even more precise that they could be with a mouse.
>I play Starcraft 2 and I can't imagine how you could possibly select individual units and pull them back when they are taking damage
You're not really arguing whether the Steam controller is bad -- you're simply saying any gamepad would be bad for Starcraft/RTS.
This is likely never going to change -- unless an RTS is designed from the early stages of development to be usable on gamepads, no gamepad will ever be acceptable for a game like Starcraft that requires 40+ actions per minute at the very lowest levels of play and 300-500 actions per minute by the professional level players. I doubt that there will ever be any controller better suited for a high-micro RTS than the keyboard/mouse combo (except perhaps some kind of direct brain-signals-to-game-input method in the not so near future ).
You know, as a 80APM mid level player I wonder if this will be usable for me. I love Starcraft but I'm pretty sure the fast wrist movements are seriously screwing up my wrists, and I don't even play that much, so it would be worth it to me to try out an alternative interface, even if it's a little slower, if I can not fuck up my wrists before I turn 30. Though I have tried playing with a trackball and it also sucks so dunno if this can be any better, but I'll probably give it a try at least. Hmm... probably not really going to work with control groups and spells and the like, but maybe I could play team games with it lol.
It sounds to me like you would be able to use the trackpad regions as either "joysticks" or "trackpads" which means for an RTS game you would be no worse off than using a trackpad over a mouse. Other games might be better using them as joysticks where the input re-centers if you lift up from the control surface. Seems like a pretty big improvement over traditional controllers without any significant downsides.
> which means for an RTS game you would be no worse off than using a trackpad over a mouse.
Just about anyone who plays RTSs would agree that trackpads are completely unacceptable for input. For a game like SC2, you might as well not even play, because you would be lose so badly at against anyone at a similar skill level.
I figure they're trying to be optimistc about it... it might not measure up to a mouse, of course, but either way it's a huge improvement. This device will get you from "this is completely unplayable" to "hey I can get through the single-player campaign and maybe do some co-op comp-stomping with my buds"
I agree, though I think a thumb trackpad probably gives you a little more precision than a regular trackpad. That might be the difference between unplayable and barely playable. I guess you might be able to play against someone a league below you or something, which might not be too bad if you just want to relax for a bit.
Hotkeys are pretty important for RTSes too (at least SC2). I will definitely try this out for ergonomics reasons but I don't know if they'll have enough hotkeys to make it playable at a reasonable level. But maybe if buttons are context sensitive or something it could work out.
It has a mouse replacement for RTS and FPS, can emulate all the buttons for games that need buttons, and has 2 big analogic sticks for games that need them.
Looks like a nice new thing, not as different as the kinetic or wiimote, but not more of the same either.
This is huge. Consider that first person shooters are the largest genre in the livingroom gaming space, and then consider this controller may change how these games are made and played. Other consoles are locked into a thumbstick system for the next 10 years. How big this is will come down to how the controller works and feels, obviously, but it could be just massive.
I think the reason that using mouse is more precise is not because of its shape, but because we use at least all of our palm to use it while with controllers you only have one thumb to connect the stick with your body.
I disagree. I think the reason is more fundamental: with a mouse, you're doing a direct translation (distance in pad → distance on screen), while with a gamepad you're doing an indirect translation (distance in stick → velocity in screen).
This is harder, because you're essentially forced to calculate (in a low conscious way, of course) distance/speed to know for how much time you should turn the stick.
You're correct. I guess this is why I speculate that the new trackpads uncomfortable with action/platforming games, since in those games, you move your character and dictate their speed (velocity plus direction), not pointing their position.
We'll see of course, and since the controller will be "hackable" I think there will be many way to use the controller for many types of games.
This isn't true. With a mouse you have acceleration settings that greatly change how distance works. Flick your mouse up quick vs slowly move it and measure how much distance you've moved your mouse relative to where your mouse moved to on the screen.
For any high-dpi mouse this is not useful and not used even in ordinary windows/mac mode (is it really turned on by default? ugh..); and I've never seen it used in games.
> I think the reason is more fundamental: with a mouse, you're doing a direct translation (distance in pad → distance on screen), while with a gamepad you're doing an indirect translation (distance in stick → velocity in screen).
There's no fundamental reason this has to be the case, of course; if the developer wanted to, they could use stick input as position rather than velocity. Conceptually, this is no different than using a high resolution trackball.
If that were the case, one would expect that the trackball only would be as accurate as the controller and less accurate than the mouse. However, my anecdotal experience is that the trackball is as accurate, if not more so, than the mouse, despite only using the thumb.
My suspicion is that the difference is more of a calculus problem. Moving my thumb on the trackball by a given amount changes my position by a proportional amount. On the other hand, for most games, moving my thumb on the stick by a given amount changes my velocity by a proportional amount. To put it differently, if I'm aimed at a stationary target with my trackball, I remain aimed until as long as I don't move my thumb. With a stick, if I'm aimed at a stationary target and don't move my thumb, I'll keep turning at a constant rate.
I don't see that happening, unless Sony and Microsoft follow suit with similar controllers, or this one is somehow made compatible with those systems.
When it comes to market share, those systems are still top. AAA developers especially will be making games geared towards them - they won't shift the way they make a game for one new entry. They will still make it standard: console-style for the thumbstick, and PC port for keyboard+mouse.
While I applaud Valve for marching in a new direction, I'll remain very skeptical until I've tried the controller myself. I doubt that the immediate feedback and precision of a traditional console controller can be emulated using trackpads, as advanced and "haptic" as they may be.
I've played some FPS games with a trackpad for lack of having a mouse available, and on a larger, higher precision one (e.g., Macbook size) it was not a bad experience at all. You can move a finger a lot faster than a whole arm. Reflex high-res motion at the pro Counter-Strike level isn't likely, but for the casual gamer, trackpad FPS control absolutely seemed plausible. So I believe this kind of input will work for many games that need pointing, and I also believe it will solidly outpace analog sticks for FPS games.
The Halo two-analog-stick model that has taken over the genre was always awkward and imprecise compared to keyboard/mouse (probably most of the skill in Halo was simply getting used to the stick dead zones and the acceleration/deceleration of the look field). I will be happy to see it fade away.
I haven't used a thumb-controlled trackpad, but do use a trackball which I'm imagining might be the most-similar experience to this input controller, since it's a thumb gesture but still much closer to the precision of touching a surface than wiggling a stick. I'll be really excited if this makes the FPS experience in my living room actually work for me.
Try as I might, I can't get used to moving around with my keyboard.
While I might be slightly more accurate at aiming with my mouse, actually moving around with a controller is considerably better for me. To each their own.
I understand the moving thing, though I got used to it really well - but the accuracy of my mouse is so much better that it makes the difference between getting killed and dominating.
IIRC I've always been old that I should move my whole arm with the mouse. The idea being that it's a small movement for your elbow/shoulder but a much larger movement for you wrist so you can avoid wrist injuries by moving your whole arm.
Ideally you move your fingers, not your arm or wrist. Realistically though, nobody is playing games by moving their arm, even if that is perhaps what you are suppose to do.
I mean, those same ergonomics guides also tell you to keep your back straight and your feet flat on the floor in front of you. How many people do that?
well, I don't move the wrist as well - the idea is that you rest your wrist in a comfortable position, and move it with your fingers, the full range of motion needed is less than an inch.
If your arm is up in the air so that it can move the mouse, then it will get tired after a few hours, won't it?
depending on what motion you are doing with the mouse, from careful aiming through to whipping right round in circles with the mouse coming off the surface, you end up using everything from your fingers to your shoulder. Up and down (away and toward) motions are generally shoulder motions, for instance, unless they are very slight, as otherwise you arch your hand too far off the mouse.
Interesting. Game controllers are a fascinating user experience design challenge. While Playstation and Xbox controllers are fairly well-polished functional workhorses, I appreciate companies (like Nintendo and, now, Valve) pushing the envelope.
More than even the games (which, I suspect, will also mostly be available on other consoles or PCs), this intrigues me enough to want to get a Steam Machine. (Still, though -- that's a bit of a cumbersome name.)
Even if it doesn't work, we can expect something to spawn from that in the future. Joypads tend to evolve across companies and products. Remember D-Pad and start-select from NES and L+R and 4 group buttons from SNES, then N64 with analogue stick and rumble while PS1 had handles and Saturn added analogue L-R, Dreamcast take it from there, Xbox took what Dreamcast had and perfected it over two iterations, while Sony... ah you get it.
It looks like yet another controller with some special, device-specific features (advanced haptic feedback) that will only be supported by their first-party games and a few novelty ones.
> Even the older titles in the catalog and the ones which were not built with controller support. (We’ve fooled those older games into thinking they’re being played with a keyboard and mouse, but we’ve designed a gamepad that’s nothing like either one of those devices.
^ this was my first thought when I saw the controller.
I'll probably build my own Steam box but I'll definitely be buying the Steam Controller. I think this is what they wanted us, the hardcore PC "gaming master race" to do, while at the same time offering it up to OEMs for consumption by the console folk.
My biggest concern is the possibility of touching the screen in the middle while trying to hit the A,B,X,Y buttons. I know it specifically says you have to physically press the screen down to confirm your choice, but it would be distracting to be inadvertently interacting with the screen.
I want someone to design a mouse for the couch. Mouse provides superior aiming for any shooter games. Mouse isn't critical for movement however, I can move just fine with an analog stick. I'm not sure a trackpad would make movement any easier.
First problem: wires. Solution: wireless. Easy.
Second and largest problem: you need a surface. If you're on the couch you don't have a mouse surface. You could use your pants or couch cushion as a surface, but that's obviously not ideal.
Third problem: non-mouse hand. It needs a controller for movement. It can't be a keyboard, nobody is going to want a keyboard on their couch. I'm thinking something like the numchuck of the Nintendo Wii, except with additional buttons. You could experiment with either an analog stick or trackpad for your thumb. Again, it's not for aiming, it's for movement. Your mouse is for aiming.
It sounds like that's basically what valve's going for here. It's a mouse for the couch, except that instead of a left-hand keyboard we've got a trackpad. That's ambitious in that they think a trackpad can be used in place of a joystick/WSAD, but Valve's bread-and-butter is FPS games so I don't think they'd go for that if they didn't think it'd work.
Super Mario 64 DS had an interesting feature where you could put your left thumb on the touch screen and use it like a joystick. The neutral zone would be wherever you put your thumb down, and a little diagram would appear on the touch screen showing where the edges, neutral zone, etc., were.
I remember this actually not being too bad. I didn't use it over the D-pad for any precise movement, but part of that was the awkwardness of having to stretch the thumb over the the touch screen. There also was a little thumb pad on the DS strap you had to wear to get it to work smoothly, and that was a little clumsy to use. It was also hard to get a sense of where the neutral zone was, etc., since the only indication was a diagram under your thumb.
It looks like this controller takes that same idea and improves on it. You won't have to stretch your thumb or wear a thumb pad, and the circular trackpad maps better to a joystick than an arbitrary circle somewhere on a touch screen. It also looks like there's ridges on the pad, which could help with getting a sense of where you are.
If it was sort-of viable as a side feature in a nine-year-old game, I'm optimistic about Valve's ability to make it work. As you said, it's not like Valve is unfamiliar with the area.
You have a kinder memory than I. I loathed that game so very much. Part of the problem was I had a DSFat, so that's along-assed way for the left thumb to reach. But it might be less excruciating without the thumbpad. Because seriously, that thing sucked.
That and the bolted-on character switching mechanic combine to make my memories of M64DS less than kind. A shame, I loved it on N64.
But still, I trust Valve to do a better job than that, since they're betting the whole platform on this kind of interface.
> Third problem: non-mouse hand. It needs a controller for movement. It can't be a keyboard, nobody is going to want a keyboard on their couch.
I use a lapdesk + laptop + mouse on my couch all the time (yeah, I could ditch the lapdesk and mouse, but a mouse is so much better than a trackpad, etc., that its worth it), so I don't see the problem with a small (e.g., netbook sized) keyboard + mouse as a couch controller combo, with a lapdesk -- for a dedicated gaming controller, design the a dedicated surface with the bluetooth connection and directly attach the mini keyboard and mouse to it and you're done.
Do you really think that the mouse which was invented in the 60s (mother of all demos) is the pinnacle of technology regarding input? It is for now (I do agree with your premise for my own personal reasons) but such a bold expression seems a little, how should I put this, small minded.
I feel this is an interesting direction to experiment on.
> Do you really think that the mouse which was invented in the 60s (mother of all demos) is the pinnacle of technology regarding input?
You're kind of pushing what he said. He's referring to gaming, and probably shooter games. A mouse is definitely the most precise input device for shooters, or else you'd see professional eSport FPS players using laptop trackpads.
For gaming (this is gaming related news after all) my benchmark will always be who would win in quake or counter strike with everything else (player skill, weapons, etc) being equal.
The mouse currently dominates all forms of commercial gaming input.
Ok, you all misunderstood what I was trying to say, which means I said it badly.
What I was hinting at is that though the mouse is currently the best form of input for a lot of games (ANSI the reason why I don't have a console, I don't like gaming without a mouse), does that mean we should stop trying to find other forms of input device?
I didn't mean the age statement negatively, just to point out we've had this tech for a while, so maybe it's time to look for other ways to go, instead of 'building a faster horse'.
In 2060 who knows what will be the top form of input for gaming. It might be this controller, it could still be the mouse or it may be something we haven't even dreamt of yet.
I wasn't suggesting that we stop trying to come up with new tech. In fact I'm quite interested in what valve is trying to do. Despite not even trying it I think their track-pad controller will be better than analog stick controllers.
When I said track > analog sticks I didn't mean laptop track pads but valve's. However not even valve is suggesting its better than the mouse for games like counter-strike or dota2
I think that it is obvious that this dual track pad solution could be a good move for any game style which currently uses dual analog sticks (FPS and 3rd person, etc).
As others have already mentioned, it is less obvious whether this will be a good solution for platformers and fighting games. But with a bit of quick pondering I suspect it could open up a huge range of options for any developer who wants to try and step outside the normal "the player will use combinations of button presses to trigger actions".
For example, a platformer which rather than using a "tap button to trigger a small jump" and "long press button for a larger jump" we could not only see a "small up scroll = small jump" and "long up scroll = large jump" input method, but also a "slow up scroll = slower jump" and "fast up scroll = faster, more explosive jump".
Fighting games could also open up a lot of depth based on the length and speed of right hand strokes, not to mention the variety of angles and rotations which could be made.
This is actually a very interesting observation. Especially as they are making the controller quite open. I don't see the AAA titles working with this soon, as they want to keep their games consistent across platforms, but steam has really been growing for indie devs, and those are exactly the devs that will come up with interesting,unthought of ideas for this type of input
The newer EA boxing games, and the THQ UFC games use dual stick controls as the primary moving/fighting controls. Players seem to like it better than button mashing. I thought it was cool when I learned quick flip left was jab, hold the stick left for more powerful punch, and circle the stick left for a cross or uppercut.
Remember that the track-pads are clickable like a face button, and it sports 2 shoulders and a 3rd pseudo-shoulder in the back-button on each side. That means that for a fighting-game you've got a full suite of buttons available to you. That's 9 buttons available assuming you keep your left thumb glued to the trackpad. Buttons are not in short supply.
The real question is how well the track-pad works as a D-pad. For Mario-style games that primarily use left and right but don't do much up and down? Should work fine.
For a Capcom-style fighting game with its elaborate rolls and whatnot, or the hyper-precise of a shmup? That's the real question.
>> For a Capcom-style fighting game with its elaborate rolls and whatnot, or the hyper-precise of a shmup? That's the real question.
Fortunately there are gazillions of USB controllers out there that will probably work out of the box with the Steam Machine. Many of the BT controllers will probably work too.
I find the Steam Controller interesting because it's the first console-type controller I've seen that might actually do a good job satisfying people coming from the PC gaming world.
The trackpads look great. Hopefully they can deliver on the promise of making mouse and keyboard games more accessible on the tv console.
The Y and B buttons look difficult to press. Given the arc that your thumb travels on pivoting from the base of the controller handles, it may make sense to shift the buttons down and towards the center.
I would also consider removing the on-controller screen. It adds a big per-controller cost. Also, when have these been successful? Neither the Wii U nor the Dreamcast did this idea justice. Was it just bad implementation? I think its just a bad idea.
Wow, the announcements are coming at a fast clip and each more impressive than the last. I wonder if the final announcement in this round will be that Half Life 3 is a launch title?
369 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 218 ms ] threadBut I'm not going to count it out. I'll reserve all judgement until I get to try it. And that's the only real sticking point for me on this announcement; everything else about this controller I love.
For that alone I'm very interested, obviously also the fact that they're trying to make things quite open.
I would tap and drag for little and precise movements, swipe for fast movements, and press the button for default movement. With some training, it can become pretty natural.
I have always usually done this, but also remapped the trackpad to be entirely a "scrollpad"
Yep, and you can also click and release the middle mouse button, then separately mouse up or down. Interestingly, I have only been able to get either this OR the press then scroll behavior you described working on Windows (by toggling a setting), but in Linux you can have both enabled at the same time.
I do use a tiling window manager and bindings like Vrome/Vimperator, so my use case is probably atypical. My mouse usage is limited to when I deem it absolutely necessary; I hate physical/mental context switching, and bringing my hand from keyboard to TrackPad/mouse/whatever is a huge context switch.
I would use it so much more if it was between H and J.
How do you stretch your finger towards the middle of the keyboard with no issue? Stretching just to type a letter is fine for me (think Y, H or B), but staying on the TrackPoint is hard.
Possibly a shocking statement here but I went from a top end 2010 MBP to a 2009 T400 running windows 7 and am much happier as a whole, even though I have my head in UNIX machines a lot.
I actually have no idea how people can use touchpads. You need a huge one to be able to go corner-to-corner in one swipe and still have reasonable accuracy.
I mean, given the option of a physical mouse, I will always prefer that over both nub and track pad -- and the physical mouse requires the most movement away from the keyboard (of course, to avoid all three mouse input methods I use keyboard shortcuts when possible).
Anyway, my reasons for preferring the nub are:
* Less movement required on the actual input device. Just a slight tilt of the finger can move the mouse cursor from anywhere to anywhere else.
* Higher accuracy. This one may be subjective, only personal applicable, and/or biased, but I think the nub just makes it so much easier to navigate compared to the touch pad.
I use the nub on my thinkpad, but only because Lenovo's touchpads are truly woeful.
I'm glad they went a different route, it opens up more options for gamers and developers.
As a PC gamer, I'm super-excited for this gamepad because it will beat the ever-loving-crap out of a joystick for games that depend on a pointing-device (strategy, RTS, no-aim-assist-FPS games). It might not measure up to a mouse, but it could still provide a "good-enough" experience unlike a thumbstick.
Joysticks can do this, too, but their DPI is frequently nowhere even close to acceptable for this kind of work - they tend to be somewhere in the 200-400 DPI range, when your average mouse tends to be capable of input at several thousand DPI; if the touchpad resolution is good enough, then I think they're going to have a winner on their hands.
The problem is that you can't.
There are just too many different type of gamers having different requirements. Given Valve's lineage, their core audience are the FPS/PC type gaming crowd who are used to keyboards and mice. And this controller makes sense for that audience.
While I'm interested in the Steam Machines, I would never buy this controller for myself, because I'm into fighting games and old-school console type games. And even though the Steam Controller isn't for me, the great thing about Steam Machines is that they're still computers at heart, which means that I can probably use just about any other controller out there if it has USB connectivity and identifies it as a standard HID.
A trackpad seems like it will very easily allow your thumb to drift from a position of sending maximally-distant-from-center input to not registering any input. That's going to be a huge usability problem.
And making assumptions about what a user might have meant should a thumb just happen to slide off the edge of a trackpad is going to be problematic. [3]
[1] What would you call a 360 or dual shock controller with analog sticks that have no tension-to-center anymore? Broken.
[2] Think of how often you feel/hear that little analog stick "clack". Think of how often you're pressing against that physical boundary to ensure maximal-distance input. Each of those moments is an opportunity for a trackpad to present a problem. And those moments are awfully common. It's likely they're more common than not.
[3] did their thumb slide off, or did they raise it? did i slide off on accident or on purpose? etc
EDIT: cleaned up phrasing
But the lack of tension is going to be a bummer for action games regardless.
We tried that relative-to-an-absolute scheme on our iPhone FPS and it was very confusing. The best scheme was a relative-to-a-relative center where the origin would "follow" the thumb, but then we had a full screen to do that.
The problem with a relative-to-an-absolute scheme (even one with the little raised circle) is you have no idea where the thumb is until you touch the control but then it's too late.
Not saying it can't be done, it's just a little bit tricky.
Heck, as someone who doesn't own a console, this might finally get me to play games on my TV.
This device is for Valve's massive library of PC games that need a keyboard and mouse that are normally unplayable in the living room (unless your living room includes a desk, in which case it's not really a living room now is it?)
The face button layout also gets to me. That's going to require some serious mental gymnastics to re-wire 20+ years of face button layout muscle memory to use this in some games (edit: especially platformers).
A retrogaming pad would be nice as an additional peripheral to sell, but realistically you can use any existing bluetooth gamepad with Steam.
Best of all, worst case, I can fall back to my trusty 360 controllers and use those without a hitch, so even if this is a disaster, it doesn't sink the platform (as can be the case with other platforms)
Nothing stopping the community doing the same thing and sharing the results with everyone, though!
The ergonomic buttons like the triggers and rear buttons are best for actions you need to perform while moving. There's six of those in total. Compare to WASD and a common 3-button mouse setup: the mouse buttons, shift/ctrl, and the easy-to-reach keys 1234EQZXCF. So yeah, you won't have as many quick-reach keys available to you. I would grade the keyboard keys as a bit harder to reach though because you have to take fingers off movement to hit them.
I don't see how this markedly improves over current controllers and their integration. The key genres for which the current controllers don't work, such as RTS, don't seem to be that much better off with this solution. Maybe its just a lack of imagination on my part, but I will have to see more to be convinced.
From the announcement:
> Even the older titles in the catalog and the ones which were not built with controller support. (We’ve fooled those older games into thinking they’re being played with a keyboard and mouse, but we’ve designed a gamepad that’s nothing like either one of those devices.)
(Yes, i know Civ isn't an RTS, but it is a strategy game that is unplayable on a stardard controller)
The only games that are even harder are very fast RTS like Star Craft 2.
I cant imagen that it will work well, but Im open to beeing suprised.
You're not really arguing whether the Steam controller is bad -- you're simply saying any gamepad would be bad for Starcraft/RTS.
This is likely never going to change -- unless an RTS is designed from the early stages of development to be usable on gamepads, no gamepad will ever be acceptable for a game like Starcraft that requires 40+ actions per minute at the very lowest levels of play and 300-500 actions per minute by the professional level players. I doubt that there will ever be any controller better suited for a high-micro RTS than the keyboard/mouse combo (except perhaps some kind of direct brain-signals-to-game-input method in the not so near future ).
Just about anyone who plays RTSs would agree that trackpads are completely unacceptable for input. For a game like SC2, you might as well not even play, because you would be lose so badly at against anyone at a similar skill level.
Looks like a nice new thing, not as different as the kinetic or wiimote, but not more of the same either.
This is harder, because you're essentially forced to calculate (in a low conscious way, of course) distance/speed to know for how much time you should turn the stick.
We'll see of course, and since the controller will be "hackable" I think there will be many way to use the controller for many types of games.
Edit for spelling
There's no fundamental reason this has to be the case, of course; if the developer wanted to, they could use stick input as position rather than velocity. Conceptually, this is no different than using a high resolution trackball.
My suspicion is that the difference is more of a calculus problem. Moving my thumb on the trackball by a given amount changes my position by a proportional amount. On the other hand, for most games, moving my thumb on the stick by a given amount changes my velocity by a proportional amount. To put it differently, if I'm aimed at a stationary target with my trackball, I remain aimed until as long as I don't move my thumb. With a stick, if I'm aimed at a stationary target and don't move my thumb, I'll keep turning at a constant rate.
Like the first expensive optical mouses, trackpads will get more and more resolution and get cheaper and cheaper.
The Halo two-analog-stick model that has taken over the genre was always awkward and imprecise compared to keyboard/mouse (probably most of the skill in Halo was simply getting used to the stick dead zones and the acceleration/deceleration of the look field). I will be happy to see it fade away.
While I might be slightly more accurate at aiming with my mouse, actually moving around with a controller is considerably better for me. To each their own.
If you're moving your arm to move your mouse, there is probably something wrong with your mouse.
IIRC I've always been old that I should move my whole arm with the mouse. The idea being that it's a small movement for your elbow/shoulder but a much larger movement for you wrist so you can avoid wrist injuries by moving your whole arm.
I mean, those same ergonomics guides also tell you to keep your back straight and your feet flat on the floor in front of you. How many people do that?
If your arm is up in the air so that it can move the mouse, then it will get tired after a few hours, won't it?
More than even the games (which, I suspect, will also mostly be available on other consoles or PCs), this intrigues me enough to want to get a Steam Machine. (Still, though -- that's a bit of a cumbersome name.)
I wouldn't buy one before trying it.
I'll probably build my own Steam box but I'll definitely be buying the Steam Controller. I think this is what they wanted us, the hardcore PC "gaming master race" to do, while at the same time offering it up to OEMs for consumption by the console folk.
<3 Gaben!
First problem: wires. Solution: wireless. Easy.
Second and largest problem: you need a surface. If you're on the couch you don't have a mouse surface. You could use your pants or couch cushion as a surface, but that's obviously not ideal.
Third problem: non-mouse hand. It needs a controller for movement. It can't be a keyboard, nobody is going to want a keyboard on their couch. I'm thinking something like the numchuck of the Nintendo Wii, except with additional buttons. You could experiment with either an analog stick or trackpad for your thumb. Again, it's not for aiming, it's for movement. Your mouse is for aiming.
I remember this actually not being too bad. I didn't use it over the D-pad for any precise movement, but part of that was the awkwardness of having to stretch the thumb over the the touch screen. There also was a little thumb pad on the DS strap you had to wear to get it to work smoothly, and that was a little clumsy to use. It was also hard to get a sense of where the neutral zone was, etc., since the only indication was a diagram under your thumb.
It looks like this controller takes that same idea and improves on it. You won't have to stretch your thumb or wear a thumb pad, and the circular trackpad maps better to a joystick than an arbitrary circle somewhere on a touch screen. It also looks like there's ridges on the pad, which could help with getting a sense of where you are.
If it was sort-of viable as a side feature in a nine-year-old game, I'm optimistic about Valve's ability to make it work. As you said, it's not like Valve is unfamiliar with the area.
That and the bolted-on character switching mechanic combine to make my memories of M64DS less than kind. A shame, I loved it on N64.
But still, I trust Valve to do a better job than that, since they're betting the whole platform on this kind of interface.
Already exists: Bluetooth mouse + lapdesk.
> Third problem: non-mouse hand. It needs a controller for movement. It can't be a keyboard, nobody is going to want a keyboard on their couch.
I use a lapdesk + laptop + mouse on my couch all the time (yeah, I could ditch the lapdesk and mouse, but a mouse is so much better than a trackpad, etc., that its worth it), so I don't see the problem with a small (e.g., netbook sized) keyboard + mouse as a couch controller combo, with a lapdesk -- for a dedicated gaming controller, design the a dedicated surface with the bluetooth connection and directly attach the mini keyboard and mouse to it and you're done.
Do you really think that the mouse which was invented in the 60s (mother of all demos) is the pinnacle of technology regarding input? It is for now (I do agree with your premise for my own personal reasons) but such a bold expression seems a little, how should I put this, small minded.
I feel this is an interesting direction to experiment on.
You're kind of pushing what he said. He's referring to gaming, and probably shooter games. A mouse is definitely the most precise input device for shooters, or else you'd see professional eSport FPS players using laptop trackpads.
"the Steam Controller’s resolution approaches that of a desktop mouse"
The mouse currently dominates all forms of commercial gaming input.
The joystick was invented in 1908, but it is still in fighter jets today, isn't it? Who gives a shit how old it is?
What I was hinting at is that though the mouse is currently the best form of input for a lot of games (ANSI the reason why I don't have a console, I don't like gaming without a mouse), does that mean we should stop trying to find other forms of input device?
I didn't mean the age statement negatively, just to point out we've had this tech for a while, so maybe it's time to look for other ways to go, instead of 'building a faster horse'.
In 2060 who knows what will be the top form of input for gaming. It might be this controller, it could still be the mouse or it may be something we haven't even dreamt of yet.
When I said track > analog sticks I didn't mean laptop track pads but valve's. However not even valve is suggesting its better than the mouse for games like counter-strike or dota2
As others have already mentioned, it is less obvious whether this will be a good solution for platformers and fighting games. But with a bit of quick pondering I suspect it could open up a huge range of options for any developer who wants to try and step outside the normal "the player will use combinations of button presses to trigger actions".
For example, a platformer which rather than using a "tap button to trigger a small jump" and "long press button for a larger jump" we could not only see a "small up scroll = small jump" and "long up scroll = large jump" input method, but also a "slow up scroll = slower jump" and "fast up scroll = faster, more explosive jump".
Fighting games could also open up a lot of depth based on the length and speed of right hand strokes, not to mention the variety of angles and rotations which could be made.
The more I ponder it, the more I'm hopeful.
Clang will like this.
The real question is how well the track-pad works as a D-pad. For Mario-style games that primarily use left and right but don't do much up and down? Should work fine.
For a Capcom-style fighting game with its elaborate rolls and whatnot, or the hyper-precise of a shmup? That's the real question.
Fortunately there are gazillions of USB controllers out there that will probably work out of the box with the Steam Machine. Many of the BT controllers will probably work too.
I find the Steam Controller interesting because it's the first console-type controller I've seen that might actually do a good job satisfying people coming from the PC gaming world.
The Y and B buttons look difficult to press. Given the arc that your thumb travels on pivoting from the base of the controller handles, it may make sense to shift the buttons down and towards the center.
I would also consider removing the on-controller screen. It adds a big per-controller cost. Also, when have these been successful? Neither the Wii U nor the Dreamcast did this idea justice. Was it just bad implementation? I think its just a bad idea.