Sony pulled rumble from PSOne controllers?

Thank the heavens they sidestepped all those potential legal and fuctional issues by leaving the vibration motors out of their Dual Shock controllers. Could've caused a real headache there.

I have a dual analog controller. In-box.

It could emulate the dual analog flight-stick that was released with PS1 on US day one. The analog light would be either off or red, just like on a Dual-Shock, but it also could be green, emulating that fancy flight stick.

It was out for a few months (and completely ignored) before the Dual Shock came here.

The rumble was not removed, as it was not there (even in Japan) at the time. Later it showed up.

Note that the picture in the scanned article is the Dual Analog controller, the picture at the top is a Dual Shock. You can tell because the grips on the dual analog controller were significantly longer than the ones on the Dual Shock and the original controller.

Sony pulls rumble from everything. Rumble means nothing to Sony. Neither do love, trust, and compassion.

That's why I'm getting a Wii

Nuff said

Huh?

My PsOne Controller has the rumble feature on it.

Yeah, I've got that pad. It's bulky and hard to use. It wasn't too long before they changed it and brought out the Dual Shock in it's slimmer form (where have I heard that before?)

Same here 'Elf. My dusty old PS1 Dual-Analog stick have rumble.

I have no idea what the article refers to.

Hrm, that's weird. I have the PS1 Dual-Analog too.

Yea, the photo is of a Dual Analog controller and not the Dual Shock Analog controller.

The PSOne launched in 2000 and was announced a year prior to its launch, so if said article was published in 1997, then said article couldn't possibly be referring to the PSOne Dual Shock.

this was before the original dual shock came out...
it was designed to emulate the dual flight stick that sony had made for the psone...

I owned one of the non-vibrating dual analog controllers.

the odd thing is the handles (or wings) were longer and sharper than the vibrating cousin.
Also the analog sticks were real floaty and concave and made of hard plastic, not the round rubbery stuff that the dual shock was made of.

I think there is a hidden link between sony controllers and the Girl Scouts. Each one will eventually feature a 'thin mint bonzo" feature.

You just wait.

it's real:

The Japanese Dual Analog controller did have rumble, but it only featured one motor. Wikipedia has a good article about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Analog_Controller

What they won't tell you is that the original PS1 controller was originally envisioned as the first anal-implacemant videogame controller.

The company was Logitech. Sony licenced their patents in 1998 and brought the Dual Shock onto the US and European markets. For comparison the Immersion patents Sony were found to infringe were filed in 2000 and 2001.

You Americans and your crazy-ass patents system.

I remember buying the original Dual Analog stick, that thing worked like crap!!!!

sockatume:
"the Immersion patents Sony were found to infringe were filed in 2000 and 2001."

Were they applied for in those years, or was that when they were granted? It sometimes takes several years for a patent to be granted. The American patent system is most definitely broken, but if Sony/Logitech's prior art was that clear, they would've won their lawsuit.

"however slight, eventually causes the controller to break" uhhhh BS. I had the PS2 controller for mmmm at least 4 years; and it still kicking. Now everyone (including Sony) will try finding 1,000,000 reason or excuses to say that rumble is bad for the PS3 or the universe. Come on admit the truth; you are guilty of infringement and you don’t want to pay to have rumble in the PS3. Let’s not forget that the wii mote has a more sophisticated motion sensitive than the PS3 controller, have a speaker and has rumble.

sockatume, the Immersion Patents at issue were filed in 1995. Easy to look up. I did. Why are you spreading misinformation? As far as I can tell Sony has no patents for forced feedback. They appear to have realized this in 1997 but apparently decided that it was easier and cheaper to steal the technology and to then bleed the small American company dry with expensive legal wrangling. Sony has destroyed other small companies using this strategy-- look up Bleem. So far this strategy has failed miserably as Sony was found guilty unanimously by a jury.

Big corporations LOVE their patents and despise those of smaller interests. They call the small patent holder a "troll". Immersion is not a troll (look it up - I did) they have 500 (or so) patents and products in many different areas including medical devices that help save lives.

I don't know how critical force feedback is to gaming, but when used effectively, it clearly makes the experience more immersive and fun. I can't imagine Grand Turismo or Madden Football without FF. Why improve the visuals and sound and then dump FF?

Amazing to me-- the lies Sony tells and how easily those lies are swallowed.

C'est la vie

Yep, I remember that period when Sony first offered analog on their controllers but not vibration effects. A bunch of third party controllers emulated that and later became severely devalued. I still have a box stashed away of about a dozen Barracuda pads with analog but no vibration. For $2 each, IIRC, they were a great soure of cheap backup pads for games that didn't make much or any use of rumble.

I thought it was a well known fact to everyone that the original Dual Analog controller didn't have rumble in it. The difference is the top of the analog sticks were not round like a mushroom, but inverted like the xbox controller.

Wow, did everyone here just start gaming with the PS2? This makes me feel old.

#17:
Simple, he read the lawsuit's documents, which cite patents 6,275,213 and 6,424,333.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,275,213.PN.&OS=PN/6,275,213&RS=PN/6,275,213
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,424,333.PN.&OS=PN/6,424,333&RS=PN/6,424,333

Like you said, they're easy to look up... and note that one was filed in 2000, the other in 2001.

Doomstalk:

"The jury found that Sony infringed all the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,275,213 and 6,424,333 and that those claims were valid."

Filed May 1 2000 and April 18 2001, respectively, granted 2001 and 2002.

BH: I reccomend you actually do the research the next time you say something, rather than assuming you're correct.

For the sake of completeness, I'll point out that the main complication is that US patent law uniquely gives priority by date of invention rather than date of filing the patent. So essentially it was up to Immersion to prove that Virtual Technologies, Inc. (holder of 6,275,213) invented the device first. Likewise Sony's defense was based around proving that Logitech invented the device first. Sony lost on both attempts.

In a patent infringement suit of this kind, you've got to prove that the infringer knowingly and willfully infringed on the patent in question if you want to get some sort of compensation. Given that Virtual Technologies' invention wasn't disclosed (by filing the patent) until some years after the Dual Shock came on the market, I'm bewildered. There's some talk of industrial espionage but nothing you'd want to base a case around.

As an aside, this case doesn't actually affect the controllers in Japan and Europe, and priority goes by date of patent in those territories anyway. However I doubt that it's worthwhile for Sony to do rumbling controllers in those two territories and non-rumbling elsewhere.

sockatume & Powerlord, I appreciate that you took the time to try and look things up for yourself. I don't believe you are intentionally spreading missinformation. Sorry if my post insinuated otherwise. My intention was only to set the record straight. Sony does not need any help spreading missinformation as (from what I have seen) they seem to be quite good at it.

"For the sake of completenes"-- If you dig a little deeper into the patents you cite, you will see that they are an extension of 565102 which was filed in Nov., 1995. All of your varied misconceptions regarding prior art stem from this basic missreading. Hence your "bewilderment". I hope this clears things up for you.

You said (ironically):

"I reccomend you actually do the research the next time you say something, rather than assuming you're correct."

Just like the judge and jury....... I did.