Rockandrollclown
lookwhatyou'vedone
Definitely a good call. Them trouncing MS on price is why I went with Sony. Rather annoying to be charged for a camera peripheral I don't want.
-
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
I like some motion control games too but it's obvious that we are the minority when it comes to hardcore gamers as a whole.
Good.
I'd rather see developers spend the bulk of their efforts coming up with compelling experiences and game mechanics built around a traditional control mechanism. Once the initial novelty wears off, there's nothing to recommend these alternate input devices - playing games with them is like trying to drive a car wearing boxing gloves and clown shoes. This is not a positive.
because the PS4 no longer has a chance to gain the casual crowed.
yes i can. Do you not remember the Wii?
That thing was bought by many millions and literally would sit there in houses collecting dust until a few 1st party nintendo games came along as well as Just Dance and sell MILLIONS of software. After that it dropped off the damn map. The world is not here for these gimmicks anymore. Also Kinect didnt even sell much software at all. So those hardware sales really didnt mean much since no one bought the software to show interest. You think after all these failed attempts that Kinect 2 will somehow make it because its forced on people?
I'm interested in that ON TOP of camera/voice features -- having all of it together.
The features being put into Dead Rising 3 (like having Zombies reply to your screams/sounds) sound neat.
New tech? It's a fucking web cam, and it was a great decision on their part not to bundle it. Adoption of the core system is way more important than adoption of an accessory. They can bundle it later in a pricier SKU after there is actual software that justifies the expense. Maybe if all PS4 shooters allowed use of the Move, and people using Move were dominating DS4 players, it would convince people to adopt it.
Also, how did they go from $499 to $399 by removing what is now only a $60 add on. Was there supposed to be a bundled Move controller too or something? Does not compute.
Also, how did they go from $499 to $399 by removing what is now only a $60 add on. Was there supposed to be a bundled Move controller too or something? Does not compute.
The "casual crowd" is constantly demanding new dumb gimmicks. Bundling in a last-generation gimmick is not going to enthrall or excite them.
And it was neat in Manhunt without a Kinect a decade ago.
If they did that they would have been RIPPED APART by the hardcore crowd; they had no choice.
Juancho9 said:
They showed everything at the intial reveal; they said E3 was about games and it did exactly that. They really had no choice.
Salmonbottle
Member
Remember when Microsoft released a SKU without a hard drive and it haunted them for the rest of the generation? "Why would I need a hard drive, games come on discs!"
It's great to give people choices, huh.
The reason Kinect/Move failed to offer compelling experiences is because they were optional accessories introduced late in the consoles' life-cycles.
Requiring Kinect is the same as requiring an online connection. It creates a MUCH STRONGER push for change. There is absolutely a tangible effect, and it's stupid to say otherwise.
It's great to give people choices, huh.
The reason Kinect/Move failed to offer compelling experiences is because they were optional accessories introduced late in the consoles' life-cycles.
Requiring Kinect is the same as requiring an online connection. It creates a MUCH STRONGER push for change. There is absolutely a tangible effect, and it's stupid to say otherwise.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Very happy they did this. Both for the price and because I hate motion controls and voice commands and with the Kinect being packed in every console that stuff will get shoe horned into a lot of games like waggle did into Wii games.
Leave it as an option for people who want to play Dance Central and other motion control games to pick up on their own.
Leave it as an option for people who want to play Dance Central and other motion control games to pick up on their own.
Not to mention that if the developer wanted to do that type of feature on PS4 they could always use the PS4 headset.
flyingmonkeywhoa
Banned
But the Wii U hasn't even been able to gain the casual crowd with it's tablet controller. Wouldn't the casual crowd just stick with their current 360 Kinect?
Snapshot King
Member
All these voice features being attached to kinect really bothered me, as I played fucking Socom back in the day with a 10 dollar pack in microphone and that worked just the same.
didnt that one tom clancy game do all this too? Like Manhunt? With the headset?
Idk how a useless camera should be needed to use simple voice commands
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
The wii is not that similar. Plus you missed the part of the Kinect 2 hardware actually being worth a damn this time. Also the fact that Kinect 2 should be able to compliment regular controller gaming more easily. There are a variety of things that could happen this gen that wasn't possible last gen, you can't just say "the Wii U failed, Kinect 1 didn't have that great of games, Kinect 2 sucks." We have no idea what the ecosystem will be like when everyone has a Kinect 2, it's far more powerful, and devs actually develop for it.
Honestly I can't really say either, but assuming you know the outcome is not right.
They could have decided that it was worth taking a heavier loss to get to the $399 price point.
Awesome decision. Why IGN made it sound negative is beyond me.
I may get the camera at some point, but to me, it only really sounds like an optional extra. Only use I liked the sound of was switching splitscreen automatically based on positions, havent seen much other uses in most games that could be applied.
I may get the camera at some point, but to me, it only really sounds like an optional extra. Only use I liked the sound of was switching splitscreen automatically based on positions, havent seen much other uses in most games that could be applied.
Shai-Tan
Banned
In threads like this everyone always equates motion controls with waggle type games but I thought the shooters that used it on PS3 were interesting and had unrealized potential. I was looking forward to the possibilities like aim mode being controlled or assisted by move functionality on the light bar in some games. Any evolution in that type of control and closer to mouse accuracy is closed off by not including a camera which is one legitimate reason to feel negatively about that decision.
Can someone please answer why the new Kinect will be game changing and bring more to the table than the first? I mean yeah it's more accurate but was that ever the real problem? The wiimote+ and Playstation Move both brought greater accuracy to the table, but game innovation didn't occur with increased accuracy.
And news flash, any RGB camera can be used to detect a person's pulse. It's not some special hardware the Kinect has...it's just a pre-existing algorithm that Microsoft is using.
And news flash, any RGB camera can be used to detect a person's pulse. It's not some special hardware the Kinect has...it's just a pre-existing algorithm that Microsoft is using.
But you needed a headset right?
Not having to put anything on is a definite plus for me and adds immersion.
Snapshot King
Member
We're going on a decade of having two screens for nintendo handhelds and now consoles. How many games can you name that used the second display or bottom screen in a genuinely new and interesting way for new gameplay, instead of just throwing interface down onto it? Is it more than 10? How about 20? In a DECADE?
Occasionally a gimmick can improve games, for a while, but it'll fade. Camera bullshits been proven time and again to be utterly useless. Hell, microsoft didn't even show their kinect game at E3.
Or because they're just ultimately not that good at creating long-lasting, compelling experiences. Kinect had a huge install base and developers just weren't that interested in it.
Reallink
Member
It's funny reading the thread about Last of Us being too hard cause a lot of people (understandably) suck at Dual Shitalog aiming schemes, and knowing that a stereo tracked Move that "just works" (without finicky calibration or drift) could probably go a long way in improving their experiences. It's a shame we'll never see meaningful support as we all know how after market accessories work out.
And that's the reason most of the people are happy that the camera doesn't come with the PS4.
People, including myself, are reluctant to spend 100$ on "maybe", "possibly" or "might"...
Red Liquorice
Member
Good call Sony.
95 percent bullshit waggle? 2 screens not useful? Dumb peripheral gimmicks? This sounds more like a tirade against Nintendo, not a discussion of Sony's camera. I will say this, however: Sony's move and Wii remote infrared are what allowed me to play fps, tps, and RTS games on consoles this generation (and light gun stuff too obviously) - dual analog is drastically inferior for all of these genres. It also expanded the market greatly by lighting up many imaginations and allowing accessible gameplay (there is nothing "bullshit waggle" about playing a bowling game in the same way you bowl in real life with family members who don't normally game).
Do you think I saw any value in kinect? No, not really. The delay sucked. But lots of people didn't care, and it expanded the market enough to gain a much improved sequel.
This "la la la fingers in my ears I don't need bullshit gimmicks" stuff is extremely short sighted and reeks of someone who wants a more insular hobby. That simply isn't a healthy way of looking at things unless you like the idea of a market contraction/correction - which is already happening btw. We shouldn't want gaming to become more like comic books, and that's the real implication of more hardcore-focused platforms that forego things that may or may not have helped with mass market penetration. This camera may not have lit anything on fire, but by not making it integral to the console we will simply never know.
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
Great decision.
I´m willing to pay more for better specs, but i`m not willing to spend more for gimmicks.
I´m willing to pay more for better specs, but i`m not willing to spend more for gimmicks.
Doctor_Thomas
Member
You're comparing a camera device, which has already overstayed its welcome, with something that would actually benefit development.
Casuals don't want the same gimmicks, that's why they're casual, they want something new and shiney. No one cared that the Move was more responsive than the Wii remote, because they'd already seen it. They won't care the new Kinect is better, because they've experienced it.
Shai-Tan
Banned
The PS Move has some obvious deficiencies in hardcore (3d) games like input lag and use of bounding box to turn which is horribly inefficient. With the light bar on the DS4 the move functionality could be used optionally and no need for bounding box when there is a second (right) analog. Presumably the new camera and hardware would cut input lag so there seemed (to an outside observer anyway) for potential to have something more viable.
Kabuki Quantum Lover
Member
Market contraction... now that's an interesting idea.
Interesting.
The Elite
BOSS
Sony was hoping to add to their profits. Simple as that.
You couldn't price a PS4 with an Eye at $499 versus the Xbone with KINECT at $499. Kinect is the superior technology and the "value" argument would have been in Microsoft's court. Dropping the Eye and going $399 did all sorts of wonders for Sony.
graywolf323
Member
in addition to being negative in tone this article from IGN seems to just be pushing a theory instead of anything factual
why would dropping a $60 camera let Sony drop the price $100? that doesn't make sense at all
if anything I bet they were going to price it at $450 including the camera and decided undercutting the Xbox One by $100 up front and then charging $60 for the camera would be better in the long run
why would dropping a $60 camera let Sony drop the price $100? that doesn't make sense at all
if anything I bet they were going to price it at $450 including the camera and decided undercutting the Xbox One by $100 up front and then charging $60 for the camera would be better in the long run
Snapshot King
Member
Whatever, you can take my post as an attack on nintendo. I didn't mention the Kinect because I felt pointing out that it's a dumb bullshit peripheral was so well known that I didn't need make the point. You also point out the move and IR simply providing controls options you prefer. That's nice for you, but that doesn't fall into the "new gameplay" that keeps being trumpeted about when people talk about including gimmick hardware.
RadarScope1
Member
Hear, hear!
Input != innovation. Innovative games are about game SYSTEMS. Innovation and entertainment possibilities are infinite in those terms. This idea that the controller holds us back is just backwards.
Oppo
Member
oh man. I forgot about that.
Manhunt was really intense with the headset turned up to max sensitivity. The first time I coughed to myself and saw an on-screen NPC dude whirl around in my character's direction was the freakiest fucking feeling.
Such simple use of the tech too, but so effective. Too bad about.. well, Manhunt.