Lag Analysis For the PlayStation Move

The $64,000 question about Sony's upcoming motion control system, the PlayStation Move, is how responsive it will be compared to traditional console controllers and its counterparts from Nintendo and Microsoft. Eurogamer slowed down videos of Sony's tech demo software to establish a rough baseline latency that developers will have to work with. Quoting: "While exact latency measurements aren't possible in these conditions, a ballpark idea of the level of response isn't a problem at all. The methodology is remarkably straightforward. Keep your hand as steady as possible, then make fast motions with the controller. Count the frames between your hand moving, and the motion being carried out on-screen. Equally illuminating is to stop your movement suddenly, then count the frames necessary for your on-screen counterpart to catch up. While not 100 per cent accurate, repeat the process enough times and the frame difference becomes fairly evident. Bearing all of that in mind, and recognizing that we don't know how much latency the display itself is adding, I'd say that a ballpark figure of around 133ms of controller lag (give or take a frame) seems reasonable, certainly not the ultra-fast crispness of response we see from games like Burnout Paradise or Modern Warfare, but fine for most of the applications you would want from such a controller."

Comments

Not for action games then?

[TSchut]

Since I suppose that 133ms + delay from your screen is quite noticeable. Too bad if you're sword fighting with a friend, 133 ms can make the difference between living or having your head roll on the floor!

Re:Not for action games then?

[grumbel]

Since I suppose that 133ms + delay from your screen is quite noticeable.

The 133ms include the delay from the display, so its not that bad.

Too bad if you're sword fighting with a friend, 133 ms can make the difference between living or having your head roll on the floor!

When both are using Move, both have to deal with the lag, so there is no difference.

Yay 133ms

[Xest]

It'll be like playing Quake on dialup again, oh the nostalgia!

Re:Yay 133ms

[bluesatin]

Don't forget that games have inbuilt lag compensation, so it doesn't feel like 133ms to the person playing; your gun makes the firing noise and animation straight after you click, regardless of your ping.

Input lag is by far worse than network lag for games.

Re:Yay 133ms

[Rogerborg]

So we're clear, we're talking about input lag here.

"lag compensation" isn't what you're describing, by the way. That's just lag hiding. Lag compensation would be having the server wind the world state back (approximately) to where it was when the client performed an action, in order to determine the result. Do you know of any games that do that?

Re:Yay 133ms

[Grieviant]

That's not lag compensation, it's simply doing some of the game actions immediately on the client side without any host side validation. Without it, basic actions like moving, firing, jumping, etc would all have to be lead, and the amount of lead would vary from game to game depending on your latency to the host (extremely frustrating).

However, these things are only happening immediately on your screen, not the host's console. So although you might see your bullets connecting with the target's face, it never actually happened unless the host agrees. The claim that "input lag is by far worse than network lag" is absurd unless you're talking about a game with client side hit detection (e.g. Shadowrun), but most console games use host side detection (Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty, etc).

Re:Yay 133ms

[Jaqenn]

I thought that the half life engine (and presumably it's decendants) did something like this. About 10 years ago they updated the engine, and a bunch of people playing counter strike started complaining that they were being shot based on a laggy opponent's client's view of where they were, not where they actually were.

Someone posted a humor article describing how JFK was actually around a corner at the moment his assassin fired, but I couldn't find the link.

Re:Yay 133ms

[Rogerborg]

Well, colour me impressed: so it does. Good on Valve for grasping the nettle.

And again my lament...

[Opportunist]

Wii-style controllers are for fun. Not for accuracy. Not for performance. Not for precision. They are meant to be a fun tool to play a game. It is by far the most inaccurate way to put input into your machine. It's like typing on a "virtual keyboard" on a touchscreen, or a projected one. Yes, it's insanely cool to use a keyboard projected onto your desk instead of an ordinary one. But you neither get the tactile feedback, touch-typing is pretty much impossible and so on. You will not write as fast on any projected/displayed keyboard as you do on a standard keyboard.

The same applies to these motion controllers. Yes, they're a freaky cool toy. They sure offer a new aspect of "fun" to games. Especially in company when you can watch others gyrate, bounce and stretch (funny or sexy, depending on gender, body type and personal preference). But be honest: Ever tried to play DDR on a keyboard instead of the dance mat? Dunno about you, but I'm HEAPS better using a keyboard.

In short, if you want performance and precision, stay with the old style controllers. Motion controllers are cool if the way is your goal, i.e. when playing the game is where the fun is at. If reaching the goal is paramount, i.e. beating some boss or making the next achivement, they are rather unsuitable.

Re:And again my lament...

[Aphoxema]

Wii-style controllers are for fun. Not for accuracy. Not for performance. Not for precision.

Is that by necessity or is that just the way it's been so far? Is it impossible to improve on or change the expectations of?