-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Forced Camera inclusion "against consumer choice"' Says Sony
- Thread starter fantomena
- Start date
Neander
Member
I'm pretty sure Ballmer held Hirai hostage in a bathroom with a knife to his balls and said "If you don't start charging for online play I'll cut them off!!". Obviously, Kaz was more than eager to oblige.
They must've missed that crucial price point conversation.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
I'll be buying it either way, but choice is never a bad thing. Choice didn't stop me from buying a PS Eye, either.
The tone of the interview the guy did with Eurogamer is completely different to how NowGamer has put what he has said, "Against consumer choice" is not quite the same as "Anti-consumer" tonally.
In general it was a pretty nice interview from Eurogamer and as that topic that we already had shows in the context of that interview he was praised for being pretty forward with his opinions and views on gaming going forward, here it just looks like he purposely is attacking MS directly and saying they are anti-consumer.
In general it was a pretty nice interview from Eurogamer and as that topic that we already had shows in the context of that interview he was praised for being pretty forward with his opinions and views on gaming going forward, here it just looks like he purposely is attacking MS directly and saying they are anti-consumer.
Not to belabor the point, but no they shouldnt do that. They should tie your purchases to *you* not to your hardware.
And if MS priced the Bone @ $400 people probably wouldn't have an issue with that either.
not_so_special
Banned
he is talking about sony and his choices,i dont see microsoft on that article,its the writer the one who is doing that
Not at all.
Inside a console box should only be things that are absolutely necessary. If the console can function without something, maybe it shouldn't be in the box, especially if it drives up the cost.
Lordwindowlicker
Member
I might not go THAT far, but I don't think it's a good policy on Microsoft's part to require their evil camera.
Miles Quaritch
Member
They tie the licences to both the console and the account. Not sure what the issue with Fedrik was having to call them, but that's never how it's worked in experience and I've been through my fair share of 360 consoles since launch.
Best logic.
OK, whether I agree or not, that's not a question of consumer choice. It's obvious why Sony would push it as that but I think it's really stretching the meaning. You might as well say that Blu-Ray in PS3 is against consumer choice by this logic, or including an HDMI cable is against consumer choice, it should be SCART only.
Not to mention, they didn't remove the camera because of 'consumer choice', they removed it because they wanted to undercut MS's pricepoint. So it's not even honest PR fluff.
I am commenting on the article, not on the previous person. I should have made that a bit more clear, sorry. Both sides are as bad as each other and I would rather let games do the talking.
hipbabboom
Huh? What did I say? Did I screw up again? :(
I'm not sure being priced higher than your competitor because you are offering different features is "against consumers'. It's actually an arrogant state on the face of it.
Playroom, the "game" that comes with every PS4, requiring the camera is arguably the biggest smoking gun -- but at the end of the day, we don't know with absolute certainty that the camera was initially intended to be bundled and so I wanted to avoid treading on the toes of those who find the matter contentious.
It was the same thing I was thinking. People take this as "Sony's Brilliance" when in reality this same statement applies to "forcibly" insisting on "BluRay." In the end, it was beneficial to those who bought it but it was a "forced" feature.
But anything that throws more fuel to the "XO Kinect" fire, why not? -Adam
I was referring to Nintendo, not MS. MS does it properly.
My Vita came with a memory card...
CrunchyFrog
Member
I am sure MS didn't just opt to include Kinect w each X1 if they didn't have some market research to back it up.
Sony went on the record to say they didn't know what Microsofts price was doing to be. They also said $399 was their target for a long time.
Blu-Ray on PS3 wasn't against consumer choice. People had a choice to not buy a PS3. Kinect isn't build into ge system. Xbox One can function just fine without it.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Apologies.
walltowall
Member
This.
Point being that you can't justify Kinecrt 2.0's inclusion by calling it the "fastest selling consumer electronics device" of all time. Both consumer and developer interest in the device has dropped off a cliff since its admittedly successful launch.
The Wii Balance Board sold about as many units as the Kinect, but Nintendo has better sense than to bundle it in the WiiU.
Right, and you think that seeing MS come out the gate insisting that Kinect was essential to Xbone didn't weigh on their mind when they were deciding whether to include the PSEye? Highly implausible.
...people have a choice not to buy an Xbone. It's a choice that millions of people are exercising this holiday season.
Most don't though, which is a shame. The rebooted version with 1GB of memory will go a little ways to fixing that, but they could have easily integrated 4GB for the same price.
I love mine, but the Vita represents everything that's wrong with console accessory pricing.
MaximusPayne
Member
You lost me at Nintendo has sense.....
I personally think Sony decided to ditch the mandatory camera as soon as Randy Pitchford convinced them to move from 4GB to 8GB GDDR5.
But no matter what the original motivation was, they made the right call and $399 is an extremely important price point, especially in XBoxland USA.
But no matter what the original motivation was, they made the right call and $399 is an extremely important price point, especially in XBoxland USA.
The research is that Kinect sales are over 24 million sold.
The games on the other hand... Look at this list and find more than three that were really awesome thanks to Kinect. I mean find one, Dance Central?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kinect_games
And the only game that uses the pre packaged camera won't release until Q1/Q2 2014. WTF?
I agree with your comment, but at this very moment MS is mudslinging too so I see this as fair game.
something fishy
Member
Should have been a standard hd sd, would have been vastly cheaper.
Nymphae
Banned
Is it so hard to believe that both price and consumer choice contributed to the decision? Yeah, obviously they want a lower price point than their competitor, and this route also makes them look better than the other guy who's offering less (no) choice.
Neander
Member
Kinect seems to be necessary to Microsoft and what they want to accomplish in the living room. Sony doesn't view the PSeye in the same way nor do they seem to have grand ambitions for it. Different strategies. Consumers still have a choice because we can buy the PS4 or XB1 or Wii U.
GumDumpster
Banned
Sony is getting too cocky. This time next year, they might become the draconian institute we accuse Microsoft of being.
Remember, they took Linux away!
Remember, they took Linux away!
My guess is that it will be a non-issue
NYShotgun06
Neo Member
Does anybody know what anti-consumerism is anymore?
It really is anti-consumer, especially when you take into consideration that its inclusion benefits Microsoft the most. Kinect is a device oriented mainly at the casual demographic, yet the hardcore gamer is forced to pay its price even though most of this demographic will barely use it, if at all. The irony of it is that the system is just too damn expensive to attract the casual market that Kinect is aimed at, so the end result is a product that is aimed at nobody.
How Microsoft was so stupid to believe that they could fully appeal to such radically different demographics with the same product is beyond me. If they truly believed in Kinect and in the vision that they had for it, they would have done everything within their reach to convince people that Kinect is something that a gamer must have. We should have been seeing Kinect-based games left and right ever since the console reveal. We should have seen a switch from traditional gaming controls into what Kinect offers. This may sound crazy, but actually taking out the regular controller and simply putting in Kinect would have gone a long way to reduce at least a small portion of the system's price, thus making it more accessible for everyone; it would have shown confidence in their vision; it would have shown that the company behind this product truly believes in it.
But there's none of that. Instead, Microsoft (and the third parties) keep releasing traditional games, with traditional gaming controls. Not only are Kinect-based games scarce; they are virtually non-existent. And yet, they expect each and every one of their potential consumers to put up, shut up, and pay the extra $100. Why? How can they expect anybody to drop even a dime for this thing when the very company behind this product is not showing confidence in it? They want us all to have Kinect so that "developers that want to use it can indeed use it", not realizing that things never work that way in the market. If you want people to own your products, you have to give them reasons to desire them. Expecting everybody to put down money for it in the hopes that sometime, somehow, maybe, someone will make good use of it, is laughable and downright insulting to the consumer. This, right here, is precisely why forced Kinect is "anti-consumer", and why it's a selfish corporate decision that benefits absolutely nobody but the company behind it.
What really baffles me is how Microsoft expects to eat their cake and have it too. Has it never occurred to them that the hardcore gamer being disinterested in Kinect (a fact that they seem to be well aware of, given the presence of a regular controller alongside every XBO and the almost complete lack of Kinect-based games) is only going to make this demographic unwilling to even consider their console as an option if they feel forced to buy it? Microsoft wants to keep the one demographic that put them where they are today in the industry, but they are so fixated and obsessed with the casual gamer that they are utterly incapable of coming up with a product that appeals to either demographic. They are not willing to give up either demographic, and this will prove to be their downfall unless they switch (furthermore) their vision, and make a product that focuses on one demographic, and one alone. It's precisely the one thing that is killing them in these first steps of the next-gen race. Sony knew from the beginning whose pocket they wanted, and they went after that with a ferocious and steady vision, showing confidence in their product every step of the way. Not surprisingly, the public has responded accordingly, with nothing but enthusiasm.
So, which one is it going to be, Microsoft? Hardcore or casual? Make your pick. But make it quick. Time seems to be running out for you.
How Microsoft was so stupid to believe that they could fully appeal to such radically different demographics with the same product is beyond me. If they truly believed in Kinect and in the vision that they had for it, they would have done everything within their reach to convince people that Kinect is something that a gamer must have. We should have been seeing Kinect-based games left and right ever since the console reveal. We should have seen a switch from traditional gaming controls into what Kinect offers. This may sound crazy, but actually taking out the regular controller and simply putting in Kinect would have gone a long way to reduce at least a small portion of the system's price, thus making it more accessible for everyone; it would have shown confidence in their vision; it would have shown that the company behind this product truly believes in it.
But there's none of that. Instead, Microsoft (and the third parties) keep releasing traditional games, with traditional gaming controls. Not only are Kinect-based games scarce; they are virtually non-existent. And yet, they expect each and every one of their potential consumers to put up, shut up, and pay the extra $100. Why? How can they expect anybody to drop even a dime for this thing when the very company behind this product is not showing confidence in it? They want us all to have Kinect so that "developers that want to use it can indeed use it", not realizing that things never work that way in the market. If you want people to own your products, you have to give them reasons to desire them. Expecting everybody to put down money for it in the hopes that sometime, somehow, maybe, someone will make good use of it, is laughable and downright insulting to the consumer. This, right here, is precisely why forced Kinect is "anti-consumer", and why it's a selfish corporate decision that benefits absolutely nobody but the company behind it.
What really baffles me is how Microsoft expects to eat their cake and have it too. Has it never occurred to them that the hardcore gamer being disinterested in Kinect (a fact that they seem to be well aware of, given the presence of a regular controller alongside every XBO and the almost complete lack of Kinect-based games) is only going to make this demographic unwilling to even consider their console as an option if they feel forced to buy it? Microsoft wants to keep the one demographic that put them where they are today in the industry, but they are so fixated and obsessed with the casual gamer that they are utterly incapable of coming up with a product that appeals to either demographic. They are not willing to give up either demographic, and this will prove to be their downfall unless they switch (furthermore) their vision, and make a product that focuses on one demographic, and one alone. It's precisely the one thing that is killing them in these first steps of the next-gen race. Sony knew from the beginning whose pocket they wanted, and they went after that with a ferocious and steady vision, showing confidence in their product every step of the way. Not surprisingly, the public has responded accordingly, with nothing but enthusiasm.
So, which one is it going to be, Microsoft? Hardcore or casual? Make your pick. But make it quick. Time seems to be running out for you.
This is my biggest problem with Kinect. If it's so important to MS, why haven't they bothered to improve the performance of the one 24 million people bought? Why not release more games for it that aren't junky little shit titles? And when I say improve performance, I mean via the software. The voice recognition on it is a complete joke. And as you point out, Kinect is so important to them that they've got nothing for it at launch. Ubisoft does, though, and that game is a disaster by all accounts. If MS wants people to take their console seriously, perhaps they should take it seriously themselves first.
Pirates took Linux away. Sony was still reeling from the huge revenue drops because of the rampant PSP piracy as well at that time.
well, its NOT forcing bluray on everyone, and its NOT forcing another proprietary memory stick that costs twice as much
DR2K
Banned
Basically. The one thing about Vita they fucked up.You know what else is anti-consumer, Sony?
GumDumpster
Banned
Great but that doesn't dispute what I wrote. Stuff changes and who knows, it might be another long generation.
MaximusPayne
Member
you can only do so much with an 8 year old console
What if u want an Xbox One without kinect?
You see consumers deserve the choice of not only which console to but what to buy with it. Forced bundling isn't a good thing.
walltowall
Member
Xbox One is built around a feature set. That feature set includes the Kinect camera. To say that it functions "just fine" without it is a one sided view. What you mean is that you don't want the Kinect portion of the feature set. These are more than just game boxes now. If a consumer like myself or yourself is not enamored with that feature set and the platform it is built around we don't need to buy the system since there are other devices at varying price ranges that provide the functionality we may be looking for. It is the ultimate in consumer choice.
Neuromancer
Member
Sure, but it was probably the same market research that told them that 24 online check ins and limits on selling and trading disc based games were a great idea.