If they did this price point they would win the console war that fast.
-
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.
Every PS4 won't come bundled with an EyeToy after all? Image Inside.
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
If they did this price point they would win the console war that fast.
jeff_rigby
Banned
1) The light bar on the controller
2) A separate input for the camera. USB3 can support both the Kinect2 and PS4 Eye. A separate input is needed only if a low power and/or separate processing path is needed.
3) Skype
4) Voice and Gesture control for XTV. Top end Samsung Smart TVs have stereo cameras and microphones in a special remote for voice and gesture commands as well as Skype.
We are left with there are serious plans to to use the camera, when though? Optional Camera but eventually (within a year) a must for the Casual user.
Stock Analysts are saying that the Xboxone had a better showing because of the Kinect and Voice control with an emphasis on a all in one TV set top box that plays games. Sony needs to also mention their STB plans and I suspect that they include the Camera/Move as seen in most of the Sony XTV patent drawings.
Kinect2 is a more expensive camera with lots of processing in the camera case. PS4 camera is simpler with I suspect the separate path to the low power second chip as southbridge that has System memory and may have a GPU (For low power STB functionality) that has compute ability to process the video for the AMD APU that has it's own memory, CPU and GPU.
User Name Here
Member
I wonder if it is even a good idea to not include the camera since the controller needs it for the light bar. I can see people bitching about needing to buy the camera in order to utilize all of the controllers functions.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. I'll be surprised (very) if it's not mandatory.
If Sony releases 2 SKUs (with and without camera), that'll be the death of it. Why force developers into using the camera if its not supplied? Who knows.
I know it'll be good for the final price of the console but it is not a smart idea in terms of splitting the console into bits and pieces. If DS4 uses the controller then the camera should be supplied with the console.
For some reason I always read your posts in Gary Busey's voice. :|
Opus Angelorum
Member
Developers can choose to either have PSEye support or Remote Play. I think the vast majority with go with the latter.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
The biggest problem with that choice is that it'll have the same fate as PSMove. No one remembers PSMove anymore or cares about it anymore.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Exactly my point. I don't think Sony want to focus on motion control as it was nothing more than a reaction to the Wii. Just another tick in the 'It Only Does Everything' box.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Xbudz
Member
I agree. They are killing Move's chances before it even comes out.
You've never had an eyetoy before, have you?
SlipperyFishes
Banned
So instead of working with the camera which every PS4 owner would potentially own they'd expect people to purchase a Vita to play the same games they have on the telly box?
Besides. The camera would be a lifestyle accessory to the ps4.
The Move controller (and by extension the camera) haven't been utilised by any game in such a way that suggests their cost should be absorbed by the console price. If a game is released which makes genuinely compelling use of the add ons, then they will have no problem selling well. Kinect, Eye Toy (PS2), Guitar Hero and Wiimote + are all proof that you can sell peripherals succesfully if the software is there and the price is right (or the message is delivered well enough).
I would rather not have to pay a higher default price for a console. If they make a game/service which makes great use of the camera, then I'll happily consider a separate purchase.
Opus Angelorum
Member
If it's not included I would expect less than 10% of PS4 owners to buy it, just like Move on the PS3.
Ace Trainer
Banned
Great, now how the hell is my PS4 gonna know I want some greasy pizza?!
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Exactly. Whatever they're brewing won't be experienced by many if it's not bundled.
Given the relative prominence they've given it alongside DS4 to date, I'd be surprised if a premium SKU didn't include it, vs being sold entirely separately.
Of course, who knows what ratio of standard
remium SKUs they might have at launch or going forward.As for game support, I guess the need to bundle it with every unit or not might depend on what kind of game support they want. If they see it supporting a niche of games (dance, fitness, sports etc.) maybe it doesn't need to reach the entire userbase.
I'm kind of neutral on it. I think if cost allowed it, why not include it in every box? It's no harm really. It might promote a wider array of gimmicky use in earlier titles if it was in every box, and some people might not like that, but that would probably decline over time.
I'm not sure the video in the OP tells us very much. That line is the best one to take if you haven't yet decided to bundle it or not, and as of the Feb meeting they apparently had not.
Sony should have enough first party games they could bundle the camera with for an attractive price. Or bundle it with a year of PS+ for good savings.
If the launch games won't have meaningful features that support the camera, releasing it now makes little sense. Split screen/seat change could be such a feature, but I doubt Killzone, Infamous or Driveclub have split screen. All it would do now is raise the price of the console.
If the launch games won't have meaningful features that support the camera, releasing it now makes little sense. Split screen/seat change could be such a feature, but I doubt Killzone, Infamous or Driveclub have split screen. All it would do now is raise the price of the console.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Given the relative prominence they've given it alongside DS4 to date, I'd be surprised if a premium SKU didn't include it, vs being sold entirely separately.
Of course, who knows what ratio of standard
As for game support, I guess the need to bundle it with every unit or not might depend on what kind of game support they want. If they see it supporting a niche of games (dance, fitness, sports etc.) maybe it doesn't need to reach the entire userbase.
I'm kind of neutral on it. I think if cost allowed it, why not include it in every box? It's no harm really. It might promote a wider array of gimmicky use in earlier titles if it was in every box, and some people might not like that, but that would probably decline over time.
I'm not sure the video in the OP tells us very much. That line is the best one to take if you haven't yet decided to bundle it or not, and as of the Feb meeting they apparently had not.
I agree, it should be included to stop fragmentation of the user base.
dapperbandit
Banned
If the PS4 is cheaper than the Xbone on release because the camera isn't bundled, that could potentially be the third incentive that wins over consumers sitting on the fence.
1) Free Internet
2) Plays Used Games
3) Costs Less
Altogether that could really make the difference at launch.
Now I just have to pray that it launches in the UK before 2014.
1) Free Internet
2) Plays Used Games
3) Costs Less
Altogether that could really make the difference at launch.
Now I just have to pray that it launches in the UK before 2014.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Playing used games on the PS4 has yet to be clarified, and I don't think it will be good news.
But it's because they were peripherals to begin with which is why you haven't seen anything decent.
I turn the nice big group of all the people who own a PS4 into two groups. All the people who own a PS4 and a subgroup within that that own a PS4 AND a Move sensor. As a publisher that isn't being paid any money to utilize the controller in some way I know I'd choose the larger group.
If it was part of the console and didn't segregate the audience into two groups I bet some clever devs could make something great with these things.
While your point is a bit blunt (although I do accept the logic of it), you're working on the assumption that devs would indeed take advantage of the move in ways worth stumping up the money for if it was ubiquitous. I'm maybe less confident that this would be the case.
Also, while your point is perfectly valid for 3rd parties, it doesn't excuse Sony who (IMO) are still to show any genuinely compelling reason to own a Move/camera setup and you can extend that to Nintendo, who had an entire generation of success to prove this kind of kinetic input, which for the most part they failed to do (again, IMO).
Maybe its a failure of my imagination (a possibility I'm totally willing to accept), but I don't expect that camera to be useful to me, and so if given the choice, I would prefer a cheaper console SKU sans camera.
Xbudz
Member
The chances any devs will take that risk for such a low install base are well, low.
We'll likely never see that game you speak of.
Nor did we on Kinect or Eye Toy
Wiimote+ had ONE noteworthy game and that was Zelda- and core fans didn't enjoy the motion focus as much as you might think.
PS Move 2.0 is DOA
I believe that the reason you see the shovelware for the kinect and other devices is because if you dont try to get as many people who own the perf as possible then you will fail. The best way to secure that is to make it as intrusive as possible and concentrate all of your design around it. However if this isnt a problem then there could be some less intrusive methods of implementing these perfs and we may end up liking it.
As, with the last poster I replied to, this doesn't excuse Sony, who while offering some interesting implementations, completely failed to show a genuine reason for these inputs to exist, for me.
My point about those other peripherals was more to highlight that it is possible to find success with the right software, price and marketing - rather than to argue the perceived/critical quality of the software.
As for Zelda, I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of others but I'm sure you'll find plenty of 'core fans' who did enjoy them too, although that's sort of away from the point anyway.
Edit: I should probably iterate at this point that it isn't a massive issue for me either way. I'm just highlighting that, personally, if given the option, I'd prefer a cheaper SKU without camera. If that doesn't happen and every console comes with a camera, then so be it - it won't affect my purchasing decision in the slightest.
Xbudz
Member
I'm just saying, we never really got a breakout hit with Kinect, Move, Eye and to a point even Motion+ most likely because developers couldn't justify spending their time or money on developing those experiences.
If they could be sure every last person who owned the machine had the potential to play their experience, you would see more stuff coming out- and that breakout hit would have a much higher chance of happening.
Don't get me wrong, I'm buying a PS4- but I was hoping to have fresh game experiences instead of just prettier versions of the same shit.
Oculus Rift is looking like the real next-gen.
Good, let it die in fire.
yurinka
Member
I think it must be included with the console. If no this would create a similar issue that we had last gen with the headset.
Video chat (or also for the video game live streaming), user log in, pad tracking, secondary motion actions, voice commands (well this doesn't need a camera, just a mic), no need for bundled headset ... many features will be better with this and in many games would get more support if bundled
Video chat (or also for the video game live streaming), user log in, pad tracking, secondary motion actions, voice commands (well this doesn't need a camera, just a mic), no need for bundled headset ... many features will be better with this and in many games would get more support if bundled
Sandy Nipples
Banned
GDDR5 memory will drive the price of the PS4 higher than that of the Xbox One, regardless of camera peripheral.
Or maybe they'll even out if the PS4 doesn't have the camera since the XOne has Kinect 2.
Sandy Nipples
Banned
No way that's true, GDDR5 will not be cheap to manufacture, its not as widely manufactured as dinky camera components. I don't think 8GB of GDDR5 equates to a 1080p camera at all. My graphics card alone costs more than a PS4 or Xbox One will cost, and it has a fraction of the PS4s RAM.
Sandy Nipples
Banned
They will be lucky pushing that thing out at $499 and not sustain some losses already, shipping, taxing, manufacturing, it's going to be expensive, the camera would be neat, but it would then drive the system past 500. The price will go down as new facelifts/revisions are introduced and cheaper suppliers can be sourced for the build over the life cycle.
Isn't the Kinect 2 more than a 1080p camera? I'm pretty sure it is, there's more than that to it hardware wise.
The GDDR5 isn't going to cost anywhere near as much as you seem to believe it is; BOM estimates peg it at around $110~140. Dedicated GPU prices are what they are on the PC because there's a distinct lack of competition in the market.
That, and aren't Research and Development costs huge on PC GPUs?