turnbuckle
Member
If there were killer apps for it the demand would be there. asking people to pay extra for Microsoft's vision without a compelling reason is exactly why it's being forced.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony Sacrificed the PlayStation 4 Camera to Beat Microsoft on Price
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
If there were killer apps for it the demand would be there. asking people to pay extra for Microsoft's vision without a compelling reason is exactly why it's being forced.
crazygambit
Member
That's ridiculous. They would have just taken a hit on the camera if it was packed along and it would have been $449. However what I think happened was that they wanted $399 and the last minute upgrade to 8GB of GDDR5 pushed them off the mark so they had to cut the camera.
I can buy the camera later, the lack of RAM would have been forever, so I think Sony made the right choice.
Really? I think you mean MS this holiday.
The Bookerman
Member
Don't think you'll meet a lot of folks who will say this was a bad idea.
Undercutting Microsoft on price was big.
Little History lesson : Sega released the Saturn at e3 for 399$ but Sony released the PS1 the following fall for 299$. Who sold more consoles during that console war?
Better to kill a camera device than an entire system.
dragonflys545
Member
Pretty sure that would be the case... SMH
Moneyhats2k5
Member
Do people not realize how much Microsoft shit on their fans? I used to be a huge supporter and I've shifted to PS4. I'm sure there are many just like me. So yeah, there's a sudden pro Sony slant on these forums just like there was a sudden anti-Sony and pro-MS slant back in the $599 days.
What I find sad is people will by hyping kinect features to justify their Xbox One purchase just like players did for live with cross game chat.
Cross game chat is a joke by the way. It wasn't until the Vita until I realized that I don't even want this. I join a few chats with friends but ultimately end up leaving. I prefer the ingame integrated voice chat as when I'm playing a video game on my console I want to talk to the people I am playing the game with, and have no issues speaking throughout the host server ( even though in most cases its in the team chat anyways).
I can't wait to see posts hailing seeing your body in real time on your TV as the next best thing, or your heart rate. No really, the only time I care about my heart rate is when I am at the gym and am instructed to keep it at a certain zone. Why on earth would I care about it in a video game? Oh yeah, Kinect/ Nike Sports, the Kinect's killer app.
EDIT: I apologize for the rudeness, but I hate gimmicky things like this. I couldn't stand motion control and waggling with the Wii which is why I never bought PS move. I can hardly stand annoying touch controls (unless its the rare occasion that its done right) and from my demos of Kinect it seems more of a gimmick and a joke. Just give me a ****ing controller that doesn't ask for stupid insane bullshit that I don't care about, or at the very least leave it as optional if its made to pander to the mainstream casuals.
Cross game chat is a joke by the way. It wasn't until the Vita until I realized that I don't even want this. I join a few chats with friends but ultimately end up leaving. I prefer the ingame integrated voice chat as when I'm playing a video game on my console I want to talk to the people I am playing the game with, and have no issues speaking throughout the host server ( even though in most cases its in the team chat anyways).
I can't wait to see posts hailing seeing your body in real time on your TV as the next best thing, or your heart rate. No really, the only time I care about my heart rate is when I am at the gym and am instructed to keep it at a certain zone. Why on earth would I care about it in a video game? Oh yeah, Kinect/ Nike Sports, the Kinect's killer app.
EDIT: I apologize for the rudeness, but I hate gimmicky things like this. I couldn't stand motion control and waggling with the Wii which is why I never bought PS move. I can hardly stand annoying touch controls (unless its the rare occasion that its done right) and from my demos of Kinect it seems more of a gimmick and a joke. Just give me a ****ing controller that doesn't ask for stupid insane bullshit that I don't care about, or at the very least leave it as optional if its made to pander to the mainstream casuals.
That headset is to encourage people to chat during online games, they probably expect you to go out an buy a better one eventually. Also the port is 3.5mm so any set of headphones with an inline mic should work.
inpHilltr8r
Member
Never underestimate the power of Fruit Ninja
People are shortsighted in how they are thinking. It would have been great to have the camera packed in with every system. Devs would take the camera into account and experiment with it instead of just putting out obvious crap that requires little to no thought or investment. The camera could have been used to augment a game if a dev felt it could. Now companies aren't gonna bother investing time or money into the camera because not everyone has it.
We should note that the rejoicing is based on tangible experience with PS Eye and Kinect on existing systems. The world was not set alight.
Camera based motion control has niche application potential at best right now. Not sure why that seems like a controversial idea.
EDIT:
Unless we have compelling gaming experiences to match the tech - and we've been waiting a while for that - What's the point?
Packed in cameras feels like Nintendo packing a balancing board with every WiiU (sorry MS)
Camera based motion control has niche application potential at best right now. Not sure why that seems like a controversial idea.
EDIT:
Unless we have compelling gaming experiences to match the tech - and we've been waiting a while for that - What's the point?
Packed in cameras feels like Nintendo packing a balancing board with every WiiU (sorry MS)
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
How is it useless? Unlike the PS3, the SDK supports it before launch and the camera comes out at the same time as the system, not a year later. Now devs can choose to add support for it if it fits and customers can choose to buy it based on its perceived value. It is win-win unless you want it shoe horned into every game for no good reason and make people buy it who don't want it.
Yep. But is it really that much more expensive?
I guess, yeah.
Exactly.
Vita and smart glass are mandatory. That's as shoe horned as it gets. Unless the camera is mandated like that, or included in the box - it will never get wide or even meaningful support. Not sure why this point needs to be repeated.
I remember PS3 fans saying the same thing about headsets not being packed in.
dragonflys545
Member
Or they can make that shit not mandatory and no one has to throw out $100 for it.
You also need to remember that the fact companies are going to develop for the biggest install base works both ways.
If their game depends on kinect and won't work on ps4, in most instances, they'll come up with a way to make it work on ps4, even if that means dumbing it down.
I don't think there will be enough exclusives making novel use of kinect to really make a huge difference.
MrCunningham
Member
I don't see Microsoft dropping the Kinect name anytime soon. Kinect as a brand name is equally as big as the Xbox name and it shouldn't come to any surprise that Microsoft was going to push it into the forefront for their next gen console. They opened up a whole other market demographic with Kinect, and I'm sure they don't want to lose that.
Sony on the other hand can tone down or drop the PS Camera from their console, as it has never really been a major selling point for them. Yeah, they've been working with the PS Eye/ Camera longer than MS has been working with Kinect. But Sony could never capture the main stream audience with their camera. It's always been kind of an obscure peripheral by Playstation standards.
dcx4610
Member
I think another good reason why it was a good idea not to include the Eye is that it simply isn't as powerful or innovative as the Kinect 2.0.
If it was included with the system, it would forever be compared to the Kinect and it would lose since it just can't do as much. I'd rather it be an optional accessory as it should.
Cameras shouldn't be needed to play a video game.
If it was included with the system, it would forever be compared to the Kinect and it would lose since it just can't do as much. I'd rather it be an optional accessory as it should.
Cameras shouldn't be needed to play a video game.
family_guy
Member
Sure. Just like they did with Wiimote and now the Wii U gamepad.
Wow, hyperbole.
Also, wanting to open up a whole other market demographic is not the same as doing so.
Particularly when your first iteration stunk and soured people on the tech. It'll take a bit to overcome that.
Save 'N Quit
Banned
The camera will not be missed.
Bluekaveli
Member
That's good.
...and look what happened.
Well, yeah exactly. Except for the Wii U, where poor sales are pretty much the fault of Nintendo's first-party lineup, and not much else. The Wii also lacked tremendous power, unlike the Xbox One.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Cut off your head to save your left pinky.
family_guy
Member
Lack of power is no excuse for the lazy implementation of waggle controls for most of the Wii's software titles. Most developers just won't invest much time in unconventional control schemes, especially if they are trying to make a game that runs on multiple platforms.
RadarScope1
Member
Man, this is one of the single greatest posts I've ever read on GAF. I'm subbing to this thread just so I can come back to this and all the other crazy assumptions in a couple years and see what happened.
MrCunningham
Member
Well it did go from the "dude bro COD machine" to the "Let's Dance, Nintendo Wii" demographic, did it not? Maybe there was some hyperbole in my last post, but I didn't look at any numbers or anything to back up any of those claims. But it is still true that Kinect is one of Microsofts most recognisable hardware products out side of the Xbox. Looking around the net the Kinect appears to have sold 24 million units worldwide since its launch in 2010. That's roughly 1/3rd of 360 users. I would imagine that a lot of people bought a 360 just for Kinect.
Yeah the first Kinect model was still pretty premature, but it still made an impact on the Xbox name.
jts
...hate me...
What you're going to get is
a) dedicated fitness and party camera games full of crazy camera stuff no one will buy (because of potentially being crap and because most people will not have the camera)
b) good games with utterly unnecessary and optional camera stuff shoe horned like you said (it has to be optional because, once again, most people will not have the camera)
What you will not have:
Good normal games enhanced with some camera stuff that facilitates gameplay in ways not possible without (i.e. not optional)
Come on, this is the story of every optional accessory, ever. Even the Wii Balance Board with its massive adoption at the time is pretty much irrelevant, same could be said about the motion+ although that one at least served the purpose of playing Skyward Sword. Still.
Something that is not part of the lowest common denominator can't become an interesting part of a system. Forget what gamers want. If you give more (input) options to the devs and they feel safe to implement original ideas with them, the good stuff will come.
GoofsterStud
Member
You are full of it.
I'd be so happy if they dropped Kinetic. I'd buy one day one again. Granted I'd still puchase all multi-platform titles on PS4. Still I'd be happy!
Randolph Freelander
Member
Or I could just press a button.
Forced?!?!?!? Forced to do what? Last time I checked, buy anything is a choice. It's stupid to think otherwise.
Uno Venova
Banned
no you're not open minded enough
Randolph Freelander
Member
Delusibeta
Banned
Let's face facts here, with Kinect 1, pretty much all the non-dancing games that relied on it was shit, and there's zero evidence so far that games that rely on the Kinect 2 will be any better.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Better with kinect(tm)
Chuck Norris
Banned
There is absolutely nothing about the camera that needs to be part of a bundled buy from the beginning, they can include it later as part of a value addition instead of a price cut. They don't lose anything by not standardising it in my opinion, core games will not use the camera to any significant degree. Perhaps the only thing I can think of is not having standardised FaceTime, but thats no biggy for me, and will likely only be in the first year's wave of buyers
Have we seen any games that even use it? Seem they are pushing smart glass more than kinect.
nhlducks35
Member
Have you not seen the demos behind the stage after the reveal?
Dood, it'll be more futuristic and shit. Like minority report! PS4 can't fuck with that!