So, I know I'm a skeptic, but I'm even less convinced after that video actually. I figured the camera would behave more like a (more accurate) joystick in first-person shooting games. But watching that player flick his thumb multiple times across it to make large turns in Portal and Counter-strike? That almost gives me carpal tunnel just watching it. I mean, I don't care how much more precise it is, I've used mini-touchpads for HTPC control before, and it's annoying enough moving the mouse across a 1080p screen using a small touchpad that way, let alone trying to precisely turn a character around 180 degrees for example. So that actually looks worse to me for an FPS than I expected.
The other two games they showed, Civ 5 and Papers Please, are controlled only by a mouse. Obviously a touchpad works better in most cases than a joystick for controlling a mouse pointer, that's why most laptops don't have joysticks on them. (Though while on the subject, I prefer Lenovo's trackpoint for those too, but that's mainly just because I don't have to take my fingers off the keys to use the mouse when I'm working).
So, two of the scenarios in which this controller seems completely designed for work as expected, and two of them appear worse than expected (and obviously, this is just a personal opinion). I actually rarely play FPS games anyway, so that doesn't matter too much... but if they really want to convince me they need to start showing platformers, racing games, and other genres that make you look at the controller and say "there's no way that'll work".
Obviously, I haven't used this controller myself, and maybe I'm totally off. But I still can't help looking at this weird design and seeing zero benefit over a traditional controller, with plenty of downsides.
Edited by jhoff80 - 10/11/13 at 1:19pm