Talk:Analog stick

Wasn't the Sega Saturn 3D controller the first analog controller?

I may be wrong, but I was always under that impression. ~~ You are wrong. The vectrex had it in the 80's and the atri 5200 had one. Laso, the nintendo 64 had it one month before the saturn analog controller came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.100.129 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Special gloves"?

I remember hearing about that too, but it might be an urban myth. If I find a source I'll post it up. Also, it's a good idea to pop the fabric cover of an earphone over the top of the N64 stick to improve comfort in general. Sockatume 04:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The Mario Party series article lists a source: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2000/mar/mar08a_00.html. MIT Trekkie 21:29, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Revolution Controller

On 16 September 2005, Nintendo announced that their upcoming system, the Nintendo Revolution would not have any analog sticks standard, but instead, featured a gyroscopic sensor for three-dimensional detection.
Is it accurate to say that the analog stick on the nunchaku-style expasion isn't included standard?

If it's not fronwed upon I changed gyroscopic to accelerometer for accuracy.

History does not go far enough

Late 70s dedicated game machines - such as the Telejogo [1] - had analog sticks. I have one of those, it's really a non-self-centering analog stick. Stormwatch 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means add it if necessary. --Thaddius 23:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

History of Analog stick is not a history of the dualshock controller

The history section goes into great detail about the dualshock controller, describing rumble features (or lack thereof) and even stating the first game to require two sticks. This seems to be irrelevant info. It's a history of the analog stick, not the dualshock controller. There's a page for that already. If no on minds, I'll remove the info that doesn't seem to belong. --Thaddius 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Doom127, you revert my edit ad put all that stuff back. Huzah. now I want you to realize that I was taking out the rumble aspects of the article becuase this is about the Analog stick, not the history of the dualshock controller and it's rumble features. I'm going to go ahead and re-edit it. Hopefully you'll read in here before reverting it back. --Thaddius 22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to make changes to an article, please try and keep the article as accurate as you left it. There were changes to the analog aspects, such as the removal of flightstick mode. Please remain civil. -- Daniel Davis 01:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, it used to be a detailed descrition on the vibration functions in the dual shock controller. Just cause I deleted irrelevant info you cared about doens't mean you have to have a hissy fit. I stated my intents here before doing it, no one objected. So just calm down and make it more accurate, keeping vibration technologies out of there. If people want to know the history of the dual shock controller, they can click on the link to it. Please remeber that this is an article on the analog stick and keep things relevant to the title. --Thaddius 16:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing Article

The way this article is written, it makes it sound like all "analog" sticks work on potentiometers. This couldn't be further from the truth. As the reference links show, many modern sticks work on the same digital photocell technology that mice use. Unfortunately, this confusion has spilled over into the N64 article, making its information on the analog stick outright wrong. I'll attempt to fix these issues as soon as I can. :) Jbanes 15:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to make significant edits, make sure you use reliable references to avoid edit conflicts. Be bold. :D Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PSP?

From the article: "physical instability of the system that would result if the player were to use both analog sticks at the same time." How would the system be unable to stand having two sticks? This just doesn't seem right. Anyone think that someone should be deleting this? Ilikefood 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem unsourced. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it means that it would be hard to hold the PSP if both your thumbs are on the sticks, but that still doesn't seem correct anyways... Darth Walsh (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Computer sticks

The entire article is naively console-centric for an entry which is redirected from "analog joystick." Analog joysticks (yes, joysticks. where did this joystick-means-digital idea come from?) have a rich history on home computers--and industrial computers for that matter--that goes back way before Sony's 1995 flightstick. Surely the ubiquitous Kraft sticks of the 1980s deserve a mention, and what of the bizarre springless pseudo-mouse stick on the CoCo--among many others. If the "joystick" article is meant to bear that weight, then I suggest that an "analog joystick" search should redirect there instead of here. This article is fine for what it is--a history of analog stick controllers on home videogame consoles--but it is far from the whole story.75.64.178.63 11:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a paragraph about analog sticks in the 70s and 80s, but I agree that it's not detailed enough. If you have any resources, feel free to add to the article. Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Analog Stick vs Joystick + Sony Bias

The start of this article claims that analog sticks are sometimes mistakenly called joysticks, then later in the article starts to talk about analog joysticks. The whole issue needs to be cleaned up, as it makes the article very confusing to read.

Also this whole article seems a little Sony Centric. Pretty much half the history article is dedicated to Sony, the flightstick, and the dualshock revisions, most of which is not particularly important in terms of the history of the analog stick.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to change the article but I think it should be addressed. Qeee1 13:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a few days ago. POV is now more neutral; originally it was way too Sony-slanted. Kflester 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Stick Range

Just an interesting little detail: Some sticks have a range on both axis from [-1.0, 1.0], thus providing a square movement area, while others are restricted to sqrt(x^2 + y^2) <= 1.0, thus providing a circular movement area (moving stick full up and full to the right gives x=0.707, y=0.707=sqrt(0.5)). The later seems to be the logical choice for 3d character control in a game like Mario64, since it gives a maximum walk speed of 1.0 in all direction, while the other seems more logical for flight games and such, where it might be important to be able to go full 'left', even when already full 'up'. Might have some historic relevance, but then it might be just an to obscure detail for the article. -- Grumbel 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect sentence

However, the Wii Classic Controller does feature two analog sticks to allow for proper control in games from its Virtual Console service.

I don't think this is the real reason the classic controller has two sticks. The most advanced virtual console games are N64, and you only need one stick to play that. Maybe someone could clear that up if they agree? Darth Walsh (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo 64's analog stick isn't analog!

Does this deserve a mention? True analog sticks use potentiometers to measure movement on an infintesimal level of degree. But the N64 stick, on the contrary, used a mechanism that was digital, much like mechanical mice do. This has not only been confirmed in Wikipedia's N64 controller article itself, but also is explicitely stated in two reference articles- such as this paragraph from A History of Controllers: "But Nintendo's thumbstick differed from previous designs in two important ways. First, it wasn't actually analog. Analog joysticks like the 5200's had too many moving parts and were prone to breaking. Nintendo's stick was digital, but provided enough levels of sensitivity that the distinction was moot." [2][3] Shouldn't this distinction be made, if the N64's controller wasn't REALLY an analog joystick? 75.165.103.122 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo 64's analog

Whether a control stick is analog or not depends on how the term "analog" is defined in the context of controllers. There are two ways the term can relate:

1. Analog movement/control - a device that can send a range of values from a given input.

2. Analog signal - a signal capable of varying throughout a range of electrical value.

The Atari 5200 was both of these. The Nintendo 64 and later consoles, were "analog movement/control", with an optical/digital signal.

It seems appropriate to classify any input device with "analog movement/control" as an "analog stick" MachineKeebler (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your motives/beliefs about analog, you've been simply reverting the page to a version made months ago, erasing improvements to it that extend far beyond a description of the method of analog movement. Stop. 75.172.46.117 (talk) 08:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur. 98.247.24.27 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

on most of the more recent systems, doesn't any analog signal needs to be converted to digital at some point in the process? --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop Reverting This Page!

I'm not entirely certain just what is motivating the folks who insist on reverting the page to a version made MONTHS ago, but I can certainly say a few things about it. The first, of course, is that doing so pares the article down to such a level that it culls it down to a level of almost no informational value. For example, "the first" analog stick was not on the Atari 5200, it was the VC 4000. Additionally, by completly eliminating every reference to Sony, the article creates its own "facts". That is- it erases the fact that Sony's analog sticks were not created as a response to Nintendos, but instead were developed independently, from a branching set of technologies stemming from its earliest flightstick onwards. The blanking of information also removes intermediaries, like the Vectrex. In short, the article version someone keeps putting it back to makes it look like there were only two analog joysticks ever produced in gaming- the Atari one and Nintendos one, doesn't bother to give ANY information about it, and in general is just a very terrible article version. I will reiterate- please stop putting the page back to that version, and observe Wikipedias content polices regarding blanking. If you have any concerns about OR, then you may certainly address it, but from what I've seen, the individuals who have been shoving the page back to that early version have made absolutely NO attempt to discuss it on this talk page at all- note the discussion that was attempted as far back as early march in an attempt to politely talk about it. 75.165.117.203 (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe a talking section on this is much needed. Looking back on past history of this article there seems to be a difference of opinion. The article is full of various info, but I understand why is has been reverted back several times.

A lot of the info falls into either unsourced material, and not suitable for Wikipedia, or info that is better suited to another article in Wikipedia. Unsourced info can be immediately taken out under Wiki guidelines. However, even if a lot of the info was sourced, it is better suited for a different article. This article is on the analog stick, not a report on Sony's analog controllers. There are already articles on all major consoles and their respective controllers. If there wasn't, everything related to the analog stick would belong in this article, including each consoles specific history timeline related to it. But luckily, we can write article on each specific subject. Because a lot of the info is specific to Sony, it might be better suited to the specific articles the info pertains to. Some of this info, with sources, would be good additions to these other articles.

This article should describe its subject, note when/where it was introduced, and when major advances were made. The section that mentions the N64 and 5200 controller seems to be a section for notable events in the analog stick history: when it was first introduced, and the point in time where not only it was first used as a thumbstick, but also where every console after it had one. These are valid, objective points. They are not meant to demean Xbox or Sony, or claim that without the N64 controller they would have never existed; they are just facts. 3D gaming made all controllers go to analog control, Nintendo was just first.

As far as the Vectrex, I have one, and collect many old consoles. It is essentially a dpad with a stick protrusion. It gives no analog control.

Wikipedia is meant for verified, objective, sourced content thats informative and relevant to the article subject. An article with more words in it, doesn't mean its better. JokerRiddler (talk) 02:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Point by point, explaining why it should be reverted:

1: "This article is on the analog stick, not a report on Sony's analog controllers."

There are only three mentions of Sony in the entire article. One of them is only in the context of the Dual Analog setup (mentioned alongside other controllers). The other two are small mentions within the appropriate lineage of analog sticks, alongside the evolutionary line, with the same focus on Sega and Nintendo given. In other words, your claim that Sony has been given priority is baseless and that is why THAT portion of your edit needs to be reverted.

2: "This article contains a lot of unsourced info"

Name it. Point out anything that needs to be sourced in this article, because all the contentious points, as far as I've seen, have been sourced.

3. "3D gaming made all controllers go to analog control, Nintendo was just first."

Nintendo created neither three-dimensional controllers, nor did they create analog control. There is no "Nintendo is first" here, and that, right there is the crux of the matter. We have an individual who is hell bent on trying to put forward the incorrect assumption (the lie) that Nintendo was "first" in any of these things, when in reality it was a gradual independent evolution of the technology. Nintendo did no "firsts" here, and the article as he puts it forward gives the incorrect impression that it did.

4. "As far as the Vectrex, I have one, and collect many old consoles. It is essentially a dpad with a stick protrusion. It gives no analog control."

That's just a lie, and I can prove it.

[[4]] That there is an analog thumbstick with full 360 degree control, arguably the very first. Not nearly a "d pad with a stick portrusion".

You know what though, to heck with it. I've kept the article full of verified, accurate information and you guys just want to wreck it and make it into a lie? I'm tired of trying to make it right. You go have yourselves your little article. I'm sick of trying to keep it a quality article. Do go and put in something like "Nintendo was the first to do this and this and this"- go right ahead- isn't that what Wikipedia is famous for? It's not about who's right, it's about who the heck wants to put up with headaches long enough to have whatever page version they "want" to go forward! So whatever. Enjoy your lie. 98.247.24.27 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

dual analog controls

Wasn't the dual analog control scheme for console [FPS] games pioneered by Nintendo as well? I'm pretty sure GoldenEye 007 was the first console game that could be played this way by simultaneously using two N64 pads. (terrible revisionist Sony bias all the way through, by the way; it's sad to see those plagiarists getting away with stealing by spinning the gullible masses time and again – PlayStation Move, anyone?) – ὁ οἶστρος 13:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd hardly call it revisionist - more likely just pure ignorance. I didn't know until now that GoldenEye could be played with 2 controllers per person (checked it out on Project64 and it's certainly true). That said, are you sure it came before any on the PS1 did? Anyway, calm down - you sound an awful lot like a rabid Nintendo fanboy (not saying you are, but that's how you sound). I don't think ANYBODY looks at the PlayStation Move and doesn't think Wii-remote rip-off, even if it is a better implementation (it has certainly been shown to be more accurate than even Wii motion plus). Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having actually read the article, I see no Sony bias what-so-ever. No-where does it mention that SONY innovated dual-analog control for FPSs (as you seem to be suggesting), only that theirs was the first controller which had two sticks. The only mention of a specific dual-stick game isn't even an FPS, but Ape escape. Alphathon^TM (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is this article needed? Merge with Joystick

An analog stick is just a type of joystick, so why does it need a separate article? Joysticks can be analog or digital, and this article could easily be pared down and added as a section to Joystick. Asher196 (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems fair to me, as long as a distinction is made between analog thumbsticks (which is what this article refers to) and other analog joysticks (flight sticks and the like). Also, analog stick should redirect to the analog thumbstick section (rather than just the article). Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The difference between a simple joystick and the extensive history of the analog stick would create a massive, bloated article of low quality. There is enough differential between the two that it doesn't warrant merging. You might as well merge D-Pad, Game Controller, Joystick, Analog Stick, Light Gun, Dual Shock and Rumble Pak into one heaving Video Game Controller article. 75.165.122.44 (talk) 12:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Extensive history? An analog stick is simply a joystick with a short handle. How does that warrant it's own article? Asher196 (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Technologically it is just an analog joystick with a short "handle" but the implementation is what makes it notable. I am pretty much neutral on the issue (it could work either way as long as we're careful), but I think you are over-simplifying it a little Asher196. It has it's own development history, distinct uses (which can neither be attributed to analog or digital joysticks) and as a control method is just as distinct from analog flight-sticks etc as d-pads are from digital joysticks - the difference being the form factor as technologically d-pads and digital sticks are the same as well. I think there is certainly a danger that if a merge isn't done properly that the resulting article become bloated. Likewise, there is a very real possibility that the quality would be adversely effected. As both articles stand, there is no way the analog stick could be shoehorned in, and it would require a significant reworking of both articles. If the Joystick article is left pretty much untouched (i.e. only info on thumbsticks added rather than a reworking) then thumbsticks simply wouldn't fit and would likelly be whittled down to something similar to the Arcade stick section. The current analog stick article has a significant history section, which the joystick article doesn't have, but is certainly notable. Basically, I would support a merge, but only if the joystick article were completely re-written to accommodate the entire (or close to) analog stick article since it is all relevant/notable. Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Would we then also merge the other "stick" articles into joystick, like Dual Analog, Dual Shock and Nintendo 64 Controller? Seems like a slippery slope we're talking about. Certainly simple individual controllers are less worthy of their own articles than an entire multi-console spanning technology. FluffyPug (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if we do merge analog stick into joystick, merging articles about specific controllers is barely even related. I think you are simply trying to make a point about the slippery slope, but such an article does exist: Gamepad. However, it is a sort of overview article which covers the general topic of gamepads, while some of the more important ones (or simply ones which have a lot of info about them) rightly so also have articles of their own, such as the ones you mentioned. Actually, looking at the articles has got me thinking; this is a very similar case. Analog stick can easily retain it's own article while having a significant mention in the joystick article (similar to the DualShock having a mention in the gamepad article, which likewise has a mention in the even more overarching game controller article). It has also made me think, "wait a minute, the joystick article is about joystick controllers, NOT JOYSTICKS" if you see my distinction. The analog thumbstick can be seen as a type of input, while the things referred to in the joystick article are types of controller based around a joystick design. Joystick can easily refer to either the stick part or the whole controller, and I feel it refers to the latter in this case (in which case merging the two would be ludicrous). Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. my position has changed to object for the distinction between the type of controller, and the controller input method. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, per Alphathon. The Analog stick article refers to a type of control found on a Game controller, just as D-pad does, while the Joystick article refers to a type of Game controller, as does Gamepad. RamenFueled (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is even worse than I thought. Why are there separate articles for Gamepad, D-Pad, Analog stick, Game controller, Dual Shock, etc. , when they are all essentially just parts of a game controller?Asher196 (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I really hope you aren't being serious. All these things are clearly distinct and grouping them all together would be completely stupid. If you look at all the articles pertaining to gaming input devices and still think that they could all be condensed into a single article without losing info or creating a sprawling incomprehensible mess I'd like to know how. You might as well say "Why do all the consoles have individual articles?" because grouping them together would be about as concise. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm only being mildly serious to provoke discussion. I just don't see how Analog stick has enough information to warrant it's own article. I think it should be a section of Game controller, along with D-Pad. I see now that merging with Joystick probably isn't the best solution. Asher196 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Game controller has it's own set of problems- it's bloated, poorly laid out and is essentially just a collection of lists at the moment, linking to better articles. Trying to shove the entire history of analog stick development (which spans literally the entire history of game controllers) would only add to that conundrum. FluffyPug (talk) 07:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with FluffyPug; Game controller is bad enough as it is. Not only that but adding either D-pad of Analog Stick to the Game controller article is just as out of place as the Joystick article; Joystick is about a type of controller and Game controller is essentially a list of types of controller, so while mildly more relevant (since game controller is non specific) it has the same problem. Preemptively, Gamepad is no better so they can't go there either. Also you say "I see now that merging with Joystick probably isn't the best solution". The best solution to what? I honestly don't think there is a problem with it at the moment. Alphathon^TM (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If I were to remove the unsourced content, there would be very little article here.Asher196 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If by that you mean remove every sentence or phrase that does not have a citation on it, then yes, it would be very short. I'm not sure I see your point though; the game controller article is mess regardless of the citation in this one. Not everything requires citation anyway and much of the uncited info can be cited from within linked articles or is clear fact (for example citation is not needed to say that PlayStation analog controllers have 2 sticks - it is patently obvious by looking at one). Dates etc should indeed be cited, but can likely be easily found. If you are threatening to delete all uncited text then think again. That is not a good way to make encyclopaedic content, which is the purpose of citation...and all other wikipedia rules for that matter. That is why we have a "this article need citations" template at the top of the article, so that it may be improved. Alphathon^TM (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits by anonymous IPs

Greetings all. Recently several unregistered IPs have been editing the page back and forth, seemingly in some kind of edit war (it is unclear how many parties are involved since many IPs may correspond to a single editor - no sock-puppetry implied; IPs are subject to change, and the editors weren't necessarily in the same place every time). This seems to have mainly been to do with dates but also involved other things such as bloat and POV (essentially style). In order to prevent further disruption to the article, I feel it should be discussed here and a consensus reached as to what to. Much of the dispute involving dates has been resolved (ref provided) but the style conflict appears to remain.

At this point, the conflict appears to be between myself and 208.115.94.237, but as I said it is difficult to tell who IPs correspond to (for now we shall assume this IP is distinct from the others).

Following the recent edits/reverts, I decided to go in a try to provided a (more) neutral version including dates provided by the other editors. I also attempted to avoid any confusion caused by the language used. Such changes include small changes such as removal of "obviously" from the phrase "used a self-centering analog stick, obviously a precursor to the modern design", but also larger ones such as changing this

"In June of 1996, Nintendo introduced a thumb-operated control stick on their Nintendo 64 controller with Super Mario 64. While it was still a digital stick, not an analog one, (one that operated on the same principles as a mechanical computer mouse), the Nintendo 64's Control stick still allowed for a great deal of varying levels of pressure and near-360-degree control, translating into far more precise movements than was possible with a D-pad. (Incidentally, the later port of Super Mario 64 to the d-pad-only Nintendo DS portable system in Super Mario 64 DS was criticized by some for imprecise control due to lack of an analog stick on the Nintendo DS.)"

...to this.

"Initially announced for release on April 21, 1996, Nintendo released their Nintendo 64 controller on June 24, 1996^REF. The new controller included a thumb-operated control stick which, while a digital stick^REF (the stick operated on the same principles as a mechanical computer mouse), still allowed for a varying levels of movement and near-360-degree control, translating into far more precise movements than were possible with a D-pad."

Where ^REF represents a citation

Overall, I feel this (including other, unmentioned edits) is more neutral and flows better, but anyone can obviously disagree - I am but one person and not the definitive authority on style :).

Also note that I am still not 100% happy with my version (things like the repetition of "movement"), although overall I think it is better.

Any and all outside input is welcome and I hope this is resolved soon (I really don't want any more disruption to the article, and it is in everybody's interest to resolve this quickly, unless some anterior motive is at play (not that I am implying/insinuating anything)).

P.S. No comments left in the edit description (or here for that matter) were intended to be inflammatory, so I apologise if anything I said was misconstrued as such.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I'm scratching my head about at the moment is whether or not the article should be using "introduced" dates (that is, the date the device was first announced or shown at a trade show), or the dates the devices were made availiable to the general public. One side keeps going back and forth on this- one seems to want to keep the introduced date of the N64's controller and erase the introduced date of the Playstation ones, and the other side seem to want the opposite- to keep the introduced date of the Playstation controllers while erasing the N64 one. So is our consensus to use the introduced dates of these things, or the dates they were actually made availiable to the public? FluffyPug (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know TBH, I think both are useful if they can be verified (although including both bight cause a bit much clutter and confusion). The only real difference is perception really - many people seem to think that if one company announced it first (introduced) then it was their idea and the other company "stole" it. The release dates help elevate this by at least giving some indication of how long certain tech has been in R&D (it is certainly possible that the first to announce was actually the second to come up with the idea etc). I think basically the war was mostly fanboy-based, with both sides claiming neutrality (and quite possibly believing it), so with such a vandalism/non-neutral POV prone topic, it's probably best to give both (as long as we can find a way to so without turning the article into a list of dates). Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that release dates only should likely be kept, as they're more concrete and better known. My only reason for bringing in N64's controller unveiling at Shoshinkai 95 was to illustrate it's influence on the direction Sega and Sony then took with their controllers in response (which may not be apparent from the actual release dates). But maybe a neutral statement to such should be mading reference instead, the sourced 1up article in the N64 paragraph already makes specific mention of that. "And by showing off the new controller with a polished (but not complete) version of Mario 64, Nintendo showed the killer app that made the thumbstick more than a gimmick. Sony and Sega saw the writing on the wall: next generation meant 3D, and 3D meant analog. They immediately set out to create analog joysticks for their consoles. Sega actually moved so quickly on their design that they beat Nintendo to market in the US (though not worldwide)." 68.173.229.242 (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

But they weren't "responses", not in a verifiable sense. From a buisness standpoint, You don't go from having no prototype at all to a completely new controller, with completely new (and heretofore untested) technology with a set of games to match for that company in such a small period of time. Nintendo's thumbstick was a completely different optical technology from Sony or Segas (it used digital optics) instead of potentiometers, and did not originally incorporate rumble- something the first incarnations of the Dual Analog pad did, which that 1Up source doesn't mention. The Analog Stick article has been, to this point, very careful not to insert inferences about any company copying or imitating any other company, and it's important that incorrect inferences don't get inserted (it's POV, after all). Quite frankly, that 1Up article has some very questionable statements in it, which leads me to question its credibility. For example, the writer opinionates on the PS1 that "On the original PlayStation, the second stick was seen as a useless gimmick." This is, of course, very far from the truth, as that second stick was used extensively. Unless we have a source that is more reputable than what appears to be an article written ten years after the fact by someone with no first-hand experience in the matter, I would advise that the language remain neutral. I should add that, according to Sony's own press releases[5], they had been working on dual analog stick technology (using the same potentiometer based mechanisms) since at least August of 1995, before it was demonstrated at Shoshinkae. This is why the DA Controller can switch into FlightStick mode- it's just a matter of modifying the axis range. FluffyPug (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it should be fairly easy to find dates for when they were first introduced - generally speaking stuff like this is done at trade shows (E3, Tokyo Game Show etc), which have well defined and catalogued dates. If a controller is announced in a press-release then it might be harder, but both should be concrete enough. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia - it doesn't matter how well known something is, because if someone is looking it up in an encyclopaedia they are looking for things they don't know (or for verification/clarification on what they already "know"). If we do get introduction dates, it would be fairly easy to reword the article to allow them in I think. For example this

"Initially announced for release on April 21, 1996, Nintendo released their Nintendo 64 controller on June 24, 1996^REF. The new controller included a thumb-operated control stick..."

could become something like this

"On -DATE- at -EVENT-, Nintendo announced their Nintendo 64 controller which included a thumb-operated control stick. Initially set for release on April 21, 1996, it was delayed until June 24^REF".

Honestly, the only problem I see with having both is bloat, but that more than makes up for preventing more warring and can probably be made to benefit the article.

Also, there is a problem with statements such as the one you brought up 68.173.229.242 - they fall under original research, which Wikipedia has a policy against. Unless citation can be provided that the N64 controller made Sony and Sega make their controllers (such as execs from both companies stating it as such) it cannot be included. The fact that some guy said so in an article is not enough, unless he worked for both companies. Also, I'm not sure it's even true. Sony's Dual Analog Controller was "introduced" in 1995 according to the Wikipedia article (although the citation provided seems rather ambiguous and probably actually refers to the FlightStick)

Alphathon^TM (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Reworking the history section

How about this for the N64 paragraph?

On November 24, 1995 at the 7th annual Shoshinkai Software Exhibition^REF, Nintendo announced their Nintendo 64 controller (then known as the Ultra 64 controller) which included a thumb-operated control stick. Initially scheduled for release on April 21, 1996 but later delayed until June 24^REF, the stick was digital rather than true analog (operating on the same principles as a mechanical computer mouse)^REF but still allowed for a varying levels of input in both the x and y axes and near-360-degree control, translating into far more precise movements than were possible with a D-pad.

Still a little clunky I think, but getting there. Anyone care to share any info on the Dual Analog (not sure I trust the ref in its article - too ambiguous) and Sega 3D controller? Alphathon^TM (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On the surface, the press release you mention might seem ambiguous. However, if you check the date, you'll notice it was published on August 31, 1995. This places it's publication date many many months after the release of the larger PlayStation Analog Joystick. Since there was not another Sony brand analog joystick released or announced between the press release date and the PlayStation 96-97 Expo (where the Dual Analog was shown), this press release can only refer to said Dual Analog. The controller was obviously just delayed. For a really really long time. FluffyPug (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Honsetly I didn't spend too much time thinking about it, but it makes sense now you mention it. I haven't gone back to check (I can't assume you're telling the truth when we're talking about ref validity now can I :P), but while I think a clearer ref would be preferable, that one will do if nothing else can be found. It's times like this I wish people didn't have the habit of calling gamepads joysticks (etc); term ambiguity FTL. Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone- Here's the reference from the Dual Analog pad article. [6] Feel free to peruse. It comes from the 1995 editions of Game Zero magazine, established in 1994. Sorry about being such a thorn in your side you all. 24.19.87.35 (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I believe the GameZero article in question is referencing the Analog Joystick (by name even) rather than the Dual Analog Pad, it's specifically talking about the US release for the console, games and peripherals in the section dated August 21,1995. Fluffypig, you seem to be confusing the Japanese release date with an article centered on the American release. (68.173.229.242 (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Number 1- the ID name is "FluffyPUG", not "Pig". I do not appreciate you using my nickname in a disparagaing manner. Make note that insults such as that go directly against Wikipedia's policies. Secondly, you're just plain lying when you say it's referenced "by name"- they only say that "a sony brand analog joystick" will be availiable. They don't use the official term (which all press releases do, if you noticed). If they had been referencing the Sony Playstation Analog Joystick (as you'll notice they did with the MultiTap, a term Sony coined). The Playstation Analog JoyStick was something that had been out for a rather long time and which was all over the press circuit, they would not be referencing it as simply "a Sony brand" item, they would have used the same terminology. FluffyPug (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In regards to your name, whatever happened to assume good faith, another Wikipedia policy. I didn't detect any malcontent from 68.173.229.242, and "Fluffypig" could easily be a mistake (it's an easy mistake to make - I'm sure a fluffy pig would be quite a cute animal) or a typo ("u" is next to "i" on qwerty keyboards after all). If it was used that way as an intentional insult then fair enough, but still, AGF. I would agree that it was not mentioned by name, but to be fair the words used do describe a stick better than a gamepad, so he/she's probably right. As I said above, it is at the very least ambiguous. Alphathon^TM (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to you, Alphathon, I will assume the best and accept that the reference is ambiguous. Since it doesn't reference it by name, we should avoid it. FluffyPug (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)