Support NeoGAF

[captive]

When you relegate something as an accessory, you relegate it to death. Uselessness. So while us hardcore gamers win, because we don't care, all practical uses of a built in camera are dead along with this. Everyone wins on price obviously, but Sony's already taking a bath on hardware. They could've easily increased that bath by 30 or 40 bucks to get their camera off the ground.

just like all those guitars and drumsets were relegated to death last gen.

 

[maltrain]

Eurogamer: Sony mandates Vita Remote Play for all PS4 games that don't use camera.

For anyone worried about camera support.

Even better for me as a PSVita user.

Sony made a wise move.

 

[StevieP]

I have no idea. I'm still wondering why accessory = death? I think Kinect turned out to be a good thing for ms. As with EyeToy, as with Wii Fit Balance Board which special software had to be made in order to take advantage of it's features.

Relegating something to an accessory has proven to be a success.

For first party software that had been mandated to take advantage of such accessories (or money hats for third parties). Making something an accessory means death to any hope of wider support of its features and advantages.

 

[xKilltheMx]

Eye toy was never widely used in software.
Specialty software had to be made.

Kinect re invigorated the 360 as a motion control enabled console. It is not, however, in every console. Or wasn't at least. As a result, most software doesn't use it because the install base isn't there for that. Special software had to be made to take advantage of its features. That is no longer the case with kinect. Because its in every box, developers have its features at its disposal as a known quantity. Not an unknown.

Why am I explaining all this? Everyone knows what an accessory is and why it's not necessarily a good thing to relegate something to an accessory. Just mentioning something like the n64 expansion pack should say enough.

Agreed on all points. Somebody thinking about the future of gaming and give people viable options.

I think people have the right to have the option to choose at least what and how they play there games and should not be forced into it.

It would not be forced onto them just an option,that would actually be supported.

Eurogamer: Sony mandates Vita Remote Play for all PS4 games that don't use camera.

For anyone worried about camera support.

All this means is there will be a bunch of games with Vita support. That's great for vita, not seeing how it's good for the camera.


Edit: it kinda feels like SteveP and I are the only ones thinking of the possibilities and not "all I want is a controller"

 

[Ephemeris]

A good move. One that I will regret though.

 

[AgentChris]

Genius.

 

[Metalmurphy]

Eurogamer: Sony mandates Vita Remote Play for all PS4 games that don't use camera.

For anyone worried about camera support.

That article is missleading. Sony doesn't mandate anything, it's a OS level feature. Developers don't do anything.

All this means is there will be a bunch of games with Vita support. That's great for vita, not seeing how it's good for the camera.

More like all games.

 

[kick51]

Is it really a sacrifice when nobody wants it in the first place?

I'm getting a PS4, but it's funny to me that Sony is getting a lot of praise for not doing things that would have been ridiculous to do in the first place.

 

[Raitosaito]

Get out with this shit ign

 

[Kule]

I must be super tired but I read the title as

"Soul Sacrificed the PlayStation 4 Camera to Beat Microsoft on Price"

 

[VanWinkle]

That was a good decision on their part. It will probably still be utilized more than the Kinect 1.0 was since this is half the price and is coming at the launch of the console..

I DO think Sony needs to launch with a camera-based game to make use of it. Even something like a new Sports Champions with a new art style and what-not. Just give people a reason to buy it at launch.

 

[Ace Harding]

My decision to preorder a Playstation 4 after 10 years of Microsoft exclusivity in my living room comes directly from Sony's decision to keep that camera out of the box. Ultimately, price and a focus on and dedication to core games are what swayed me to the other side.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

When I pre-ordered my PS4, I made sure that I got an additional controller and camera. I always buy the camera. Hopefully there is going to be something that makes others feel like the camera is worthwhile. The cost savings through removing it were really a move to garner additional market share early on. A sku with the camera included will be coming.

 

[sublimit]

Kinect isn't just a camera. Nor even just two cameras. It's expensive for a reason.

I meant the PSeye camera.

 

[Strike]

It was the right choice. Not everyone wants to pay extra for something they might not want in the first place.

 

[BRUTALBOWN]

Best thing they could have done!!

 

[monkey666]

Even if the camera was packed in the PS4 would be less and still significantly more powerful on top of it. I'm glad it isn't packed in.

 

[injurai]

Wise decision. The camera is not an essential accessory. Those who want it will buy it anyway, sooner or later.

Good move. Microsoft should do the same.

Kind of obvious. Smart move. Why FORCE people to buy one.

Good.

Good

Good choice.

Well played.

Fantastic.

I'm more than okay with this

Very good decision

Good, Sony made the right decision.

They can do the same thing down the road for camera-required games and bundle the game and camera for $99 later. If people are interested, they'll pick it up. If not, they probably wouldn't have bought the camera software anyway.

Wise move by Sony.

Good call, Sony.

Seriously seems obvious (to me, a lousy consumer) but I'm still glad they did it.

An excellent choice.

Good... if only Microsoft had sacrificed the Kinect in order to, well, not have the fucking Kinect.

Definitely the right call.

If they can sell it at retail for 59, then bundled it would have raised the price by $50 I imagine not $100.

But I am glad they left it out, optional is better, particularly since it gives them motivation to release compelling software for it to spur sales.

Very smart decision from them. If I had the chance to sell kinect back and take $100 I would do it in a heartbeat.

Good, don't force things I don't want on me.

Imokwiththis.jpg

Microsoft take note!

And nothing of value was lost.

Yet another tidbit GAF insiders nailed months ago.

It is a very smart move. Sony have been saying all along the PS4 is for gamers first. The hardcore gamers first. Those who do not give two dogshits about camera interaction, myself included.

Kinect has never been more than a marketing ploy to me. It should be optional, not forced. It is simply not essential to the platform.

Sony made the right, and obvious, move.

Good. Cameras have no business being forced with consoles.

Bullshit, the camera is only $60 with a profit margin, so it obviously wasn't going to add $100.

We also knew it wasn't being included because the DS4 ad said so.

Very good move

Smart move, I didn't want one anyway and appreciate the lower price.

The correct choice. The cameras add nothing I want in my games or media watching/UI navigation.

That was a great idea in my book!

If this isn't a sure tell, I don't know what is.

 

[Kyon]

It would not be forced onto them just an option,that would actually be supported.

Yes it would be forcing. Forcing you to pay $60+ for something no one wants and will never buy software for

no thanks at buying an "option"

 

[Sothpaw]

Good. A camera is a novelty at best and the vast majority of buyers would prefer a cheaper system than one with a totally unnecessary camera/kinect.

 

[Chû Totoro]

They sacrificed the PS4 Camera so they can drop the price but they lost the opportunity to make games using this accessory knowing they would have the whole PS4 user base potentially interested.

I'm not sure a lot of people will buy the PS4 Camera so we'll see juste Eye Toy like games I think (means sh*t games).

It's still a very wise decision so they can do first things first : sell the more system possible. Then they'll do what they can to push everything they want.

 

[KAL2006]

There's far more hope. Having the system require the Kinect is the best thing Microsoft has done for Kinect. It allows developers to experiment with things and not have it as some dumb little things no one will ever use. They can take time to develop things that can be meaningful to the experience without shoehorning it in since every single Xbox One will have one.

Without the Eye, the light bar on the DS4 is pretty much useless. Sure there are little light singles but what good does that do? The E3 tech demos of the PSeye and the DS4 showed some really awesome features that Sony has hamstrung now by not including it.

Honestly, I was really excited for the PSeye until they decided not to include it. It'll just be an afterthought to developers now as they all aim to use PSVita controls instead of an interesting use of the Eye.

On a 3rd party view I disagree. Let's say all these 3rd party games like Destiny, Watchdogs, COD and etc make more use of Kinect since it comes with everysystem. The implementation will be shoehorned as most 3rd party games will come out on PS4/PC which don't have cameras. So this leaves 1st parties, and looking at E3, the support seems the same, you got a Dance game, Sports and etc, which they would have made anyway if Kinect was just a peripheral.

 

[harSon]

It's a solid move for Sony right now, but it's definitely a move that lacks foresight. Personally speaking, I'd value the viability of a game altering peripheral such as the PS Eye and Kinect over short term entry cost. The latter can be fixed at any point in the generation while the former is a move set in stone for the entirety of the generation.

 

[Into]

Wise decision, the only reason MS even included Kinect 2.0 seems more because they want people to talk to their console and use their hands to navigate the "TV" part, less because of actual Kinect games.

I do not think remote controls will be replaced by this, they will be replaced one day, but not by giant and annoying hand gestures, when the simple button press does the same with far less effort, far quicker and overall better.

 

[Binabik15]

Hey now, naysayers, as soon as a good light gun game is made for Move+new Eyetoy it'll be worth the bundle price! Maybe I'll even try KZ3 or other supported Move games, but first I have to get a Move. If MM brings a game with 3d sculpting, I'll get it no questions asked.

I won't shed a single tear about the lost pack-in, though.

On a 3rd party view I disagree. Let's say all these 3rd party games like Destiny, Watchdogs, COD and etc make more use of Kinect since it comes with everysystem. The implementation will be shoehorned as most 3rd party games will come out on PS4/PC which don't have cameras. So this leaves 1st parties, and looking at E3, the support seems the same, you got a Dance game, Sports and etc, which they would have made anyway if Kinect was just a peripheral.

The packed-in, guarenteed to be there Kinect didn't even get Ryse, after all.

 

[Leezard]

Excellent move. I have no interest in a camera.

 

[StevieP]

This makes no sense. Level design and enemy placement are not exactly light years ahead on PC games, where the input method is faster and more accurate than a Wiimote or analog controller.

That's because they're making the same game as consoles for most of the aaa software that we see. By continuing to perpetuate dual analog pads as the go-to for shooters, you're relegating level and enemy design, among other things, to yet another generation of stagnation. Move was a good thing. It should have been bundled.

YEAH - stupid "hardcore gamers" not willing to blindly spend 100$ on something that *might* work... smh

How about Game Developers show compelling "experiences" first and if gamers like what they are shown then gamers spend 100$ for it...

Because they'll never get on board widely with an accessory.

 

[Willkiller]

A move that ensured my purchase to them.

 

[Freki]

Agreed on all points. Somebody thinking about the future of gaming and give people viable options.

Option includes the possibilty to say no.

It would not be forced onto them just an option,that would actually be supported.

Having to pay 100$ for something I do not want sounds like the definition of "forced" to me...

All this means is there will be a bunch of games with Vita support. That's great for vita, not seeing how it's good for the camera.

Every PS4 game will play on the vita without developers having anything to do besides providing a control scheme.

 

[BadWolf]

That article is missleading. Sony doesn't mandate anything, it's a OS level feature. Developers don't do anything.

Yeah, Cerny said it just works.

He said all devs have to do is customize the controls for Vita, that's it.

 

[flyingmonkeywhoa]

Reading through various forums, there is one thing many PS and XBox gamers have agreed on: it's better to make a console's camera optional instead of mandatory.

I want the new PS Camera to succeed, but not at the cost of raising prices and forcing it on those who don't want it. Many XBox fans have expressed that they too wished that there was a Kinect-less XBone.

After launch Sony is going to roll out bundles with the camera included. After launch Microsoft is going to roll out bundles with the Kinect excluded.

Sony will most likely sell the camera with bundles of games later on, like Sports Champions 3, Media Molecule's PS4 game, or quite possibly "Until Dawn" ported over to the PS4 with move support.

They can still sell the camera and gain an install base, it just won't be as large as the Kinect 2's. Sony's best bet is to get Harmonix on board with making some sort of Dance Central bundle that includes all three games ported to the PSEye

 

[Harlock]

Even MS that included kinect in every XB1 don´t show at least one game good in using the camera. I don´t think camera games have a future.

 

[ComputerMKII]

They sacrificed the PS4 Camera so they can drop the price but they lost the opportunity to make games using this accessory knowing they would have the whole PS4 user base potentially interested.

I'm not sure a lot of people will buy the PS4 Camera so we'll see juste Eye Toy like games I think (means sh*t games).

It's still a very wise decision so they can do first things first : sell the more system possible. Then they'll do what they can to push everything they want.

If that's the only kind of games they can make with a camera then it was a good idea not to force it on us in the first place. Make a good game for it and it will sell.

 

[Freki]

Because they'll never get on board widely with an accessory.

Which means it's not worth 100$ to them - capitalism sometimes can be a wonderful thing...

 

[tirminyl]

I'm ok with this. They stated, unless it has changed, that the existing PS3ye camera is compatible. I could use what I already have. Of course I am going to upgrade but I am glad the initial price is lower. I can spend the extra on a game or two and budget for the camera when something compelling comes out for it or when I want the camera upgrade.

 

[Gori]

Good decision, mainly because of the price and having it would make it directly comparable to the Kinect, which has a lot better technology.

The real roblem with the Kinect though, is that not even Microsoft seems to know how to use this amazing technology as anything else than a microphone.

Still surprised they didn't show anything Kinect related so far except some tech demos. Meh.

 

[Loudninja]

Didn't we have a video before E3 that said it was sold by itself?

 

[Kyon]

Even MS that included kinect in every XB1 don´t show at least one game good in using the camera. I don´t think camera games have a future.

Ryse has a few useless gimmicks like voice commands and some other junk. This is why i dont want camera's mandatory its a damn travesty.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Wise decision now, wise decision in the long run who knows. We'll have to see what software comes from having kinect in the box on day 1.

Price drops but a add is always a add on.

 

[EagleEyes]

Good article. Microsoft needs something to differentiate its console from the competition and this is one of the big things that will if Kinect 2 is as good as they have been saying it will be. If they didn't have it included the 2 consoles would basically be the same exact experience. The price will be an issue though until they can lower it.

 

[Ogni-XR21]

Adoption can happen if people like it. People don't seem to remember that the dual shock controller was an add on to the first PlayStation and it was widely accepted.

 

[Shai-Tan]

There are a lot of unknowns which would inform the decision outside of price consideration. For example Microsoft has done a lot of work to integrate their camera into the interface and Sony probably had none of that. Casual games is also a non starter as many of those games would require a separate Move controller, and even worse multiple move controllers for multiplayer. They just don't have the software to do complicated skeletal models like Kinect and arguably have inferior technology to do that (dual camera vs infrared pulse)

The light bar on the PS4 game pad is potentially useful for move functionality while fixing some problems the move controller had in hardcore games but that is dependent on how good the implementation is vs the idea. It's possible they determined it isn't compelling even with the new hardware. Personally I'm disappointed in this because I saw interesting potential in move functionality last gen in games like Killzone 3.

 

[littlebirdtoldme]

Does not sound like much of an sacrifice now does it.

 

[Kyon]

Dint we have a video before E3 that said it was sold by itself?

yup. cant spell ignorant without ign

they are fabricating crap and saying "close sources" to make it seem like fact

 

[AOC83]

There's far more hope. Having the system require the Kinect is the best thing Microsoft has done for Kinect. It allows developers to experiment with things and not have it as some dumb little things no one will ever use. They can take time to develop things that can be meaningful to the experience without shoehorning it in since every single Xbox One will have one.

Without the Eye, the light bar on the DS4 is pretty much useless. Sure there are little light singles but what good does that do? The E3 tech demos of the PSeye and the DS4 showed some really awesome features that Sony has hamstrung now by not including it.

Honestly, I was really excited for the PSeye until they decided not to include it. It'll just be an afterthought to developers now as they all aim to use PSVita controls instead of an interesting use of the Eye.

Developers had over 3 years to experiment with Kinect or other motion controls now and we´re still waiting for the first meaningful experience.
Yet Kinect has proven over and over again that it´s completely worthless for anything that goes beyond primitive dance/fidget games.

 

[xKilltheMx]

Yes it would be forcing. Forcing you to pay $60+ for something no one wants and will never buy software for

no thanks at buying an "option"

Nobody will ever buy software with this decision because they won't buy the camera which means there won't be support so nobody will buy the camera. It's death for the damn camera.

They sacrificed the PS4 Camera so they can drop the price but they lost the opportunity to make games using this accessory knowing they would have the whole PS4 user base potentially interested.

I'm not sure a lot of people will buy the PS4 Camera so we'll see juste Eye Toy like games I think (means sh*t games).

It's still a very wise decision so they can do first things first : sell the more system possible. Then they'll do what they can to push everything they want.

Like I said I see why it was a good decision, but it makes me sad for the future of any significant camera support. I.e move.

It's a solid move for Sony right now, but it's definitely a move that lacks foresight. Personally speaking, I'd value the viability of a game altering peripheral such as the PS Eye and Kinect over short term entry cost. The latter can be fixed at any point in the generation while the former is a move set in stone for the entirety of the generation.

This is what I'm saying. Like 100% what I'm saying. Why is it nobody else sees this?

 

[monkey666]

Even MS that included kinect in every XB1 don´t show at least one game good in using the camera. I don´t think camera games have a future.

It is there to navigate your fantasy football and change your channels. That's the impression MS left me with anyways.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Good , fuck the shitty camera and fuck waggle.

 

[Marleyman]

The PS Eye didn't sound like it was meant to be integrated into the system as much as the Kinect sounds like so this doesn't sound like a huge loss as the article sounds.

The Eye however is DOA at this point; yeah the hardcore will cheer for this but I think it could be used in some interesting ways.

 

[la flama blanca]

Even MS that included kinect in every XB1 don´t show at least one game good in using the camera. I don´t think camera games have a future.

It's crazy how they haven't yet showed any reason why it was necessary to have the camera bundled gaming wise.