Features actually improve the experience, 'features' either detract or does nothing.
I think the point is that Sony shouldn't be wasting resources on 'features' that are not a selling point and doesn't improve the experience.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PS4 eye Needs to be featured on the OS Level
- Thread starter backbreaker65
- Start date
I think the point is that Sony shouldn't be wasting resources on 'features' that are not a selling point and doesn't improve the experience.
Thug Waffle
Member
The ability to talk to your console or move your body to interact with the system is an improvement upon the gaming experience.
Commanche Raisin Toast
Member
pretty sure they confirmed that hand gestures are in, but didn't go into any details at all. just a simple "yes" when asked.
i also feel like between Feb and E3 they touched on a few things here and there that require it to be at an OS level, so i don't think there's anything to worry about.
i also feel like between Feb and E3 they touched on a few things here and there that require it to be at an OS level, so i don't think there's anything to worry about.
I respectfully disagree. But you are free to buy the XBone if you like those features. I am glad to be able to have an option from sony not to have it.
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
I disagree.
I disagree. It usually detracts from the gameplay experience and rather than immerses you actually removes you from the scenario. I'd rather stick with my controllers with buttons.
No it won't
Why would they do that?
Arrogance of success mostly. The belief that enough people give a shit about it that it'll gain widespread acceptance.
I guess we'll see.
Thug Waffle
Member
Or Sony could have it and you could just exercise the option to not use it. I'm buying a PS4, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't welcome those kinds of attempts at innovation.
Alright.
micdrop.gif
You can still have your controllers with buttons.
How much have you used these kinds of features? I don't see how greater input flexibility detracts from a game's potential immersiveness in this case.
Would any of you like to tell me how these features would actually make your experience worse, given that you wouldn't be required to use them?
Beats me. It's pretty ridiculous, basically if your kinect sensor breaks down and stops working, you can't use your console.
Your original assertion was that it would be an improvement, I'm just saying it wouldn't be for me. If it was completely optional, then it wouldn't make it worse, no.
Parapraxis
Member
Ouch... I never thought about that, it would totally suck to not be able to play your console due to that...if it were me and that happened I'd be furious.
I am Michael Bolton
Banned
As long as it's not using up resources at the OS level then it would be option and I'd be fine with it. If it's something like the OP was requesting which is every PS4 would have resources dedicated to these features regardless of whether an owner wanted them or not then I'd take issue.
Saw that edit. Problem is now it doesn't match with the original debate you were having and doesn't make sense in context.
An example for the ORIGINAL argument being made would be check out any Steel Battalion gameplay video on youtube. Bonus for the ones that include video of people actually playing.
Or better yet lets save time and be more efficient and how about you list games that actually shown to be improved over the controller version because of kinect outside dancing games.
Thug Waffle
Member
Okay, gotcha.
My point is that I think most of the games and apps are going to refrain from forcing players to use those tools. The option to cast abilities in Mass Effect 3 through Kinect was awesome, and I would never have given it a chance if I didn't have the option to. Admittedly, I felt more immersed through that interaction.
lol what are you even saying? Are we talking about my original argument or the OP's? If we're talking about mine - which was that the types of features offered by Kinect likely resemble the kind of functionality we can expect from future generations of electronics in general - then I agree the conversation has shifted. Nobody was really rebutting that (og argument) to begin with. But my second post was, in fact, about how "it really doesn't do you any disservice if they implement these features since you can still use your controller, mouse/keyboard, whatever."
I asked...
"Would any of you like to tell me how these features would actually make your experience worse, given that you wouldn't be required to use them?"
Yeah, I don't know, man. That still feels pretty relevant and sensible in context. If the features do not make your experience worse and you are not forced to use them, there is no reason to refuse them. Especially when they make fellow players' experiences better.
Mass Effect 3
and congratulations on noticing I edited my post... ?
GoofsterStud
Member
This is simply not true.
It could be a service you turn on and off...only using resources when the developers opt in.
Edit: shitty host, bandwidth exceeded. Will rehost
famousmortimer
Banned
Just to clear up one thread of misinformation running through this topic...
I"ve heard this from several people, for months (since february), and it's about as close to 100% as any info I've ever leaked.
The $399 price was not a reaction to microsoft at all. Not even slightly. I was told after the february reveal that they hadn't decided on a price but the edict handed down was "make a box between $299 and $399." The system with 4gb of ram and the camera was going to be $399. Keep in mind that Sony had no idea if the Xbox one was going to be $200 or $800 and they couldn't be bothered worrying about that. All they could do was worry about themselves and they were deadset on $399 as the max.
Once they upped the ram to 8gb the camera put them over $399 as a realistic price. The moment they decided on 8gb the camera was removed from the box. And again, I was told this in february... before there were even rumors as to MS's price. I was told by several people the system was going to be $399, and it was.
So people saying that the camera was cut so they could undercut MS are just wrong. The camera was removed so they could hit their own target price. They learned a very harsh lesson with price of the PS3 (and the vita to some extent as well) and since 2008 when Cerny first started putting ideas together about what the system was going to be... $399 was the high end price.
#truthfact
I"ve heard this from several people, for months (since february), and it's about as close to 100% as any info I've ever leaked.
The $399 price was not a reaction to microsoft at all. Not even slightly. I was told after the february reveal that they hadn't decided on a price but the edict handed down was "make a box between $299 and $399." The system with 4gb of ram and the camera was going to be $399. Keep in mind that Sony had no idea if the Xbox one was going to be $200 or $800 and they couldn't be bothered worrying about that. All they could do was worry about themselves and they were deadset on $399 as the max.
Once they upped the ram to 8gb the camera put them over $399 as a realistic price. The moment they decided on 8gb the camera was removed from the box. And again, I was told this in february... before there were even rumors as to MS's price. I was told by several people the system was going to be $399, and it was.
So people saying that the camera was cut so they could undercut MS are just wrong. The camera was removed so they could hit their own target price. They learned a very harsh lesson with price of the PS3 (and the vita to some extent as well) and since 2008 when Cerny first started putting ideas together about what the system was going to be... $399 was the high end price.
#truthfact
This is what I believed from the beginning because it was also talks of the system being $349 before the ram went up to 8GB.
Overall, I think they made the right decision. In my case anyway, I think they pretty much nailed what I want from the PS4.
This makes sense. And I personally never believed that they lowered the price in reaction to MS's conference. You don't make a huge change like that on such a short notice.
krypt0nian
Banned
Horrible.
It really depends on the implementation. There are some pretty bad uses of things such as rumble, sixaxis, touch screen controls, Kinect, Move, etc but if done right it can greatly enhance the gaming experience. I expect the same from the touchpad on the DS4. There'll probably be some bad implementations but when done right it'll definitely improve the gaming experience. The Xbox One has an advantage in that the camera is included with every console which should lead to developers more likely to use and experiment with the device.
Thug Waffle
Member
lol.
Let's just go back to controllers with no analog sticks.
Indeed. It'll mostly be up to developers to manipulate these features to enhance the experience. Lots of "you damn kids and your illegitimate rock and roll music" attitudes about this. It's comical.
No it really isn't.
Thug Waffle
Member
Yeah, it is. +2 input methods on top of the tried and true controller = potential for more complex and varied interactions.
Gestures and voice commands are easily prone to misinterpretation and therefore unreliable. Humans use super sophisticated computers (our brains) yet we misinterpret verbal commands and gestures every day. Aside from novelty or unique scenarios I don't think those inputs are going to be worthwhile in the near future. When it comes to games, we like to have control. Where actions are unequivocally intended (push a button) and have a direct result (fire a gun). If a game uses unreliable inputs then it could lead to a ton of frustration. I thought the idea of commands to be a very useful feature in Siri for example but when it misinterprets about 25% of my words it renders the service useless and annoying.
Thug Waffle
Member
True, if the technology isn't sophisticated enough to avoid those kinds of mistakes, it's not really worth it. In my experience, Kinect hasn't been too bad at understanding me at all.
Siri, I agree, is a totally different story.
Really? I can think of a few worse ones.
DXLelouch153
Banned
honestly i want to meet whoever thought motion control is something the general populace gives a damn about and smack them in the head
people dont wanna wave their arms around like a damn gorilla
people dont wanna wave their arms around like a damn gorilla
Chief Icaroc
Banned
I disagree. Those inputs are already worthwhile now. Play Mass Effect 3 with voice controls. It is pretty cool. The voice commands are a great addition to that game. Very low frustration level. Using voice for searching and having it fail (siri) is indeed annoying I agree. but when playing ME3, the kinect only has to match the voice command from a list of available commands so it likely isn't all that difficult to interpret between Option A/B/C/D ect.... When you talk to siri it (she?) has to interpret language which is a far more difficult task, but even that is only ever going to improve. Talking to siri even 3 years from now is going to be a far different experience than it is today, and these consoles have decent life cycles.
I think that in the long run including the camera/mic for voice controls in the box is a good idea, but Sony is playing their hand a lot differently than when the PS3 came out.
I suspect they will have OS level features for the camera and mic. Was there some news or something recently that says they won't?
As far as including it the box, it's like some people just can't understand why others don't care if it's regulated to being an accessory and not implemented into every single game, app, and function. Too much weight is being placed on these cameras, because neither are going to drum up the excitement the wii did no matter how much effort they put into making you use it.
As far as including it the box, it's like some people just can't understand why others don't care if it's regulated to being an accessory and not implemented into every single game, app, and function. Too much weight is being placed on these cameras, because neither are going to drum up the excitement the wii did no matter how much effort they put into making you use it.
BRocknRolla
Member
Any and all experiences outside of dancing games I've had with my Kinect have been uniformly bad, voice controls included. Having to repeatedly say, "Xbox" at higher and higher volumes until I'm understood is frustrating, particularly when you're battling ambient noise or noise from the media you're consuming. Further, the stilted speech pattern with which you need to speak to these devices is also irritating. And as for your example of ME3 using Kinect voice control, why? How did that improve your game experience? Using your voice to call out battlefield commands or select speech for Shep is slower than the buttons, and in my experience immersion breaking, to say nothing of not being understood at times.
But voice recognition is miles ahead of the motion recognition, I'll give you that. Kinect was uniformly awful for those experience. (Edit: Outside of dancing games, as I said above)
For many people the Kinect has proven to be a frustrating experience, as opposed to an additive one, and as a result, many don't want to be paying for it. There are many devices that might add something, hell, plastic guitars add something to the gameplay experience for some games, but that doesn't mean they should be packed into the system and forced on users. Being against this device doesn't mean you're against innovation or added control options. It can simply mean you don't want to finance and support a product you dislike just to get at other experiences.
Thug Waffle
Member
Word. Hopefully, Kinect 2.0 improves upon the issues you mentioned. Like I said, I didn't experience those problems in my time with Kinect.
I do disagree on the topic of immersion. Voice commands have enhanced my relationship with the games I've played. Pressing a button to issue an order is inauthentic compared to actually verbalizing them.
As for the bold, it does indeed mean you're against this particular vein of innovation. Such may not be your intent, but it is a result of that attitude. The proposed technologies will certainly increase the number of ways a gamer can interact with their system, whether it be through their manipulation of the OS or an in-game character. I mentioned it before, but these features WILL be commonplace as the medium moves forward, and they will carry over into other electronic fields as well. There's still no reason to stymie innovation when the gamer can still use their preferred input method exclusively.
Chief Icaroc
Banned
The opposite for me. I would say it ups the immersion. I agree it is slower than the buttons, but even that makes it feel like you are talking to someone and giving orders on a battlefield. Like it is Liara's reaction time. Or maybe a command on a hectic battlefield is missed. Surely none of this was intentional but that's what it feels like for me. It made the interaction more natural.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
No thank you.
http://www.engadget.com/2013/02/20/playstation4-eye/
Headline reads: "PS4 Eye promises to unlock your PlayStation at a glance, tips hat to Kinect"
Article says: "Sony says the Eye will allow the PS4 to use face login, and the collection of microphones might make voice control possible as well."
Is this somehow no longer happening because they've not put a PS4 Eye in every box? Because I think it's still happening...
3rdamention
Member
Sony even said that at the reveal, all games that do not use the PSEye Camera will be able to be played via Remote Play.
With Remote Play being a HUGE feature for me, since I own a Vita, I am glad the camera isn't included and slowly forced down my throat.
BRocknRolla
Member
I didn't say though "it doesn't mean you're against this 'particular vein of innovation' [that being Kinect]," I said it doesn't mean people who don't like Kinect are against "innovation." Kinect is just one option as to how we might innovate game and OS control. Touch control is another example that is creeping into console gaming. (You can see it on PS4 and Wii U.) The "camera" does not have to become the de facto way for games to innovate moving forward, particularly if people don't think it adds something meaningful. Many innovations are created and die, and Kinect could be just another in that list. MS is trying to force it regardless of whether or not the market demands it, and time will tell whether or not that will be successful.
People choosing not to support Kinect does not stymie innovation, it simply stymies the kind of innovation Kinect brings to the table, which people might well feel isn't very "innovative" in the first place. Consider as well that every moment video game designers spend chasing a dream of "motion controls" is time and money spent not exploring other avenues that might even end up yielding better and more exciting results. Kinect is just another flavor of innovation that may or may not succeed. Innovation could come from any multitude of other areas and inputs.
Thug Waffle
Member
Alright, so I'll retroactively clarify that the innovation I'm referring to is that provided by Kinect, Kinect-like devices, and their many features. Touch control and Rift-like devices are another set of similarly promising technologies, but they are not mutually exclusive with camera-based technologies. And to ignore one of those platforms because the others exist is foolish, especially considering that all three are fundamentally different from one another and bring their own sets of advantages to the table.
"People choosing not to support Kinect does not stymie innovation, it simply stymies the kind of innovation Kinect bring to the table..."
So it doesn't stymie innovation, but it stymies innovation. A kind of innovation is still innovation, just as a breed of dog is still a dog.
"...which people might well feel isn't very "innovative" in the first place."
Which is really their own problem.
BRocknRolla
Member
Of course, they all do have advantages and potential, but they can't all be, and aren't all supported at the same time. It is not foolish to ignore a platform if you think another platform offers something better. That's an efficient use of your time and money. If you don't like the experiences Kinect offers, then why would you support it? Just in the hopes that the technology will eventually create something you do like in the future? No, in business and technology, it's survival of the fittest, and there is only so much room for supporting different control schemes and ideas. The ones which present the best experiences succeed, and the others don't regardless of their potential. If it was a question of, "Hey, do you want this free Kinect?" then of course people would be silly to push it away, but as it stands, it's a device someone has to pay for, and as budgets are limited, people need to make a choice about what technology they think will offer them the best experience.
So to continue your dog analogy, "I don't like Rottweilers," equates to "I don't like dogs." That's an illogical statement. "I don't like Kinect's innovation" does not equal, "I don't like innovation." Kinect is a type of innovation; a type among infinite possibilities. Choosing not to support it does not stymie innovation as a whole, it stymies Kinect. It's the difference between singular and plural. I'm not really sure if you don't actually understand what I'm saying or if you're trying to be obtuse for the sake of argument.
Edit: To give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe your logic is saying "If you don't support Kinect and the innovation it brings, then you aren't supporting a kind of innovation, so on some level, you're against innovation." I think that statement makes a false assumption that all kinds of innovations are created equal, or that if people drop Kinect's innovation, then they won't innovate somewhere else. As I said before, people will spend time and money on innovation in other places if they aren't spending it on Kinect, and the return may end up being much greater. So if you don't like the kind of innovation Kinect brings, you aren't against innovation, you're for shifting innovation in a different direction.
It's a "problem" if their opinions are somehow incorrect or unworthy of notice. Thankfully, since people are entitled to make a choice about which products they support, I think not liking what Kinect brings to the table is an entirely logical opinion to hold when choosing where to spend money, and not a problem at all.
Thug Waffle
Member
Might as well just forward to the bolded part and base your argument off of that line of thinking so it's a little easier for you to understand what is being said here.
They can certainly all be supported at the same time. Rift is a little trickier to fit in there, but at some point that technology or similar ones will be optimized to work with multiple input methods (including controllers, touch screens, motion controls, and vocal interactions). The problem with the Rift is that you can't even see your input device when you're using it. That's a glaring flaw in an otherwise magnificent fledgling technology that will have to be fixed at some point. At this stage, it is not at all impossible for a game or system to respond to controllers, touch screens, motion controls, AND vocal input.
Kinect has done pretty well so far even with the lacking software (games) to realize its potential, so I feel comfortable saying the experience has proven both successful and promising. It will continue to improve over time and has proven itself "fit" enough to survive this long. The PS4 Eye, ideally, would aim to match the Kinect's level of sophistication.
Buying a PS4 instead of a Xbone because you don't like Kinect and don't want to pay extra money for an Eye is one thing. Saying that Sony shouldn't aspire to advance the Eye technology simply because you don't like it/can't afford it (when it doesn't diminish your experience by simply existing) is another.
The fact that Sony isn't forcing anyone to adopt the Eye makes your argument about budgets and cost-cutting irrelevant. Sony shouldn't offer an advanced product to people or attempt to better integrate it with its system simply because I can't afford it? Microsoft shouldn't offer play and charge kits or improve their charge retention because I can't afford it!
Kinect is forced upon consumers which is a problem for some, but in the long haul, that universal adoption will be better for the advancement of that technology and similar ones. If any number of consumers refuse to experience the product, then they simply won't be able to participate in its development. They can play their PS4's and use their controllers while having the option to pick up an Eye in the future. The fact remains that the Eye can progress in the background while some gamers choose to adopt it early and provide feedback while others choose to wait until it really compels them.
Let's just get this out of the way: I didn't say "I don't like border collies, so I don't like dogs." I said "border collies are still dogs." Your "continuation" of my analogy is merely an attempt to distract from the simple truth provided by the initial one. What's comical is that the post you quoted already clarified my position for you, but you ignored it ("Alright, so I'll retroactively clarify that the innovation I'm referring to is that provided by Kinect, Kinect-like devices, and their many features") and still tried to refute my position based on your original misinterpretation.
The bold is closer to my point, but there's no false assumption. I'm not assuming that all kinds of innovation are created equal in the way you're interpreting it. I'm stating that all kinds of innovation are still innovation at a fundamental level. The dictionary corroborates that claim. It's fact. If anyone's trying to be obtuse, it's you. Deviating from the discussion at hand- Eye is cool, could be cooler, should be cooler/Eye shouldn't be opposed simply because you don't want to use it when it doesn't make your experience worse by existing, nor does it interfere with your input preferences/Opposing the advancement of the Eye technology on that basis is, in fact, opposing innovation for the sake of comfort - by arguing semantics even after I've clarified my meaning suggests as much.
The people who don't like the innovation Kinect brings are inherently against that innovation. I'm not saying these people are wholly anti-science or something like that, and since this entire discussion is framed within the context of Kinect and similar devices by the very nature of it taking place in this thread, it should be fairly evident what type of innovation I'm referring to.
The original statement was that opposing control inputs you aren't forced to adopt is "fueling developmental stagnation." By spreading that anti-Kinect/Eye/etc sentiment around, that is precisely what you're doing. Someone seriously said that they wanted the "best games machine" possible, then demeaned motion controls by calling them a "gimmick," implying that those controls somehow do not improve the machine's ability to deliver quality gaming content... that's borderline laughable ignorance. It being an opinion doesn't mean it isn't stupid.
The opinions are baseless in the sense that the gamers sharing them are not yet required to adopt these input methods. Their complaints are that they prefer controllers. They are able to continue using their controllers. Kinect and similar technologies will provide (and have provided) a lot of very cool experiences for all sorts of gamers. Also, the emergence of other mechanisms (touch, Rift, etc.) can continue to take place as developers and technicians advance Kinect-like devices. Kinect isn't in their way. The notion that the technology should be discontinued simply because you don't like it enough to use it is silly, and that is a problem.
And when it gets to the point where gamers are required to use these features to play a game in its entirety: #dealwithit
I'm going to ask this question again, but I'll break it down so the logic is clearer:
Are you forced to buy the Eye? (no)
Do people (not you) like the innovations provided by these initial stages of Eye/Kinect technologies? (yes)
Wouldn't the advancement of those technologies make the experience better for those that appreciate the devices? (yes, otherwise it wouldn't be advancement)
How does the advancement of the Eye technology make your gaming experience worse? (it doesn't)
Can you still use your preferred input method exclusively? (controllers? yes)
So, why are you against its development if it doesn't make your experience worse and it makes others' better? (cuz I just dun like it!)
=
opposing innovation on the grounds that you just don't think it's cool.
do I really have to type out what type of innovation I'm referring to (input methods/enhanced interactivity with gaming devices) over and over again for you to figure out what I'm talking about? how many different ways do I have to frame my argument (even in the same post) before you figure out what you're actually supposed to be refuting?
bonus question:
is an innovative controller still an innovation? (is that a serious question?)
They can certainly all be supported at the same time. Rift is a little trickier to fit in there, but at some point that technology or similar ones will be optimized to work with multiple input methods (including controllers, touch screens, motion controls, and vocal interactions). The problem with the Rift is that you can't even see your input device when you're using it. That's a glaring flaw in an otherwise magnificent fledgling technology that will have to be fixed at some point. At this stage, it is not at all impossible for a game or system to respond to controllers, touch screens, motion controls, AND vocal input.
Kinect has done pretty well so far even with the lacking software (games) to realize its potential, so I feel comfortable saying the experience has proven both successful and promising. It will continue to improve over time and has proven itself "fit" enough to survive this long. The PS4 Eye, ideally, would aim to match the Kinect's level of sophistication.
Buying a PS4 instead of a Xbone because you don't like Kinect and don't want to pay extra money for an Eye is one thing. Saying that Sony shouldn't aspire to advance the Eye technology simply because you don't like it/can't afford it (when it doesn't diminish your experience by simply existing) is another.
The fact that Sony isn't forcing anyone to adopt the Eye makes your argument about budgets and cost-cutting irrelevant. Sony shouldn't offer an advanced product to people or attempt to better integrate it with its system simply because I can't afford it? Microsoft shouldn't offer play and charge kits or improve their charge retention because I can't afford it!
Kinect is forced upon consumers which is a problem for some, but in the long haul, that universal adoption will be better for the advancement of that technology and similar ones. If any number of consumers refuse to experience the product, then they simply won't be able to participate in its development. They can play their PS4's and use their controllers while having the option to pick up an Eye in the future. The fact remains that the Eye can progress in the background while some gamers choose to adopt it early and provide feedback while others choose to wait until it really compels them.
Let's just get this out of the way: I didn't say "I don't like border collies, so I don't like dogs." I said "border collies are still dogs." Your "continuation" of my analogy is merely an attempt to distract from the simple truth provided by the initial one. What's comical is that the post you quoted already clarified my position for you, but you ignored it ("Alright, so I'll retroactively clarify that the innovation I'm referring to is that provided by Kinect, Kinect-like devices, and their many features") and still tried to refute my position based on your original misinterpretation.
The bold is closer to my point, but there's no false assumption. I'm not assuming that all kinds of innovation are created equal in the way you're interpreting it. I'm stating that all kinds of innovation are still innovation at a fundamental level. The dictionary corroborates that claim. It's fact. If anyone's trying to be obtuse, it's you. Deviating from the discussion at hand- Eye is cool, could be cooler, should be cooler/Eye shouldn't be opposed simply because you don't want to use it when it doesn't make your experience worse by existing, nor does it interfere with your input preferences/Opposing the advancement of the Eye technology on that basis is, in fact, opposing innovation for the sake of comfort - by arguing semantics even after I've clarified my meaning suggests as much.
The people who don't like the innovation Kinect brings are inherently against that innovation. I'm not saying these people are wholly anti-science or something like that, and since this entire discussion is framed within the context of Kinect and similar devices by the very nature of it taking place in this thread, it should be fairly evident what type of innovation I'm referring to.
The original statement was that opposing control inputs you aren't forced to adopt is "fueling developmental stagnation." By spreading that anti-Kinect/Eye/etc sentiment around, that is precisely what you're doing. Someone seriously said that they wanted the "best games machine" possible, then demeaned motion controls by calling them a "gimmick," implying that those controls somehow do not improve the machine's ability to deliver quality gaming content... that's borderline laughable ignorance. It being an opinion doesn't mean it isn't stupid.
The opinions are baseless in the sense that the gamers sharing them are not yet required to adopt these input methods. Their complaints are that they prefer controllers. They are able to continue using their controllers. Kinect and similar technologies will provide (and have provided) a lot of very cool experiences for all sorts of gamers. Also, the emergence of other mechanisms (touch, Rift, etc.) can continue to take place as developers and technicians advance Kinect-like devices. Kinect isn't in their way. The notion that the technology should be discontinued simply because you don't like it enough to use it is silly, and that is a problem.
And when it gets to the point where gamers are required to use these features to play a game in its entirety: #dealwithit
I'm going to ask this question again, but I'll break it down so the logic is clearer:
Are you forced to buy the Eye? (no)
Do people (not you) like the innovations provided by these initial stages of Eye/Kinect technologies? (yes)
Wouldn't the advancement of those technologies make the experience better for those that appreciate the devices? (yes, otherwise it wouldn't be advancement)
How does the advancement of the Eye technology make your gaming experience worse? (it doesn't)
Can you still use your preferred input method exclusively? (controllers? yes)
So, why are you against its development if it doesn't make your experience worse and it makes others' better? (cuz I just dun like it!)
=
opposing innovation on the grounds that you just don't think it's cool.
do I really have to type out what type of innovation I'm referring to (input methods/enhanced interactivity with gaming devices) over and over again for you to figure out what I'm talking about? how many different ways do I have to frame my argument (even in the same post) before you figure out what you're actually supposed to be refuting?
bonus question:
is an innovative controller still an innovation? (is that a serious question?)
DXLelouch153
Banned
because motion control is wasted time that could be developed on the true future of gaming
VR
VR
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
I'm personally thinkin' they may pack it in with games that require it (1st Party); the device from what I remember only costs them $40 to make.
It doesn't sound too plausible when I really think about it tho, b/c that's like them selling Wii Sports (w/ real next-gen production values) for $80.
I don't even remember of Wii Sports was sold separately or if so how many copies it sold.
Even though there haven't been any games announced yet for the PS Camera besides "Just Dance 2014", I think the PS Camera would move units if Sony would just announce that you could group video chat via Skype or Google Hangouts while playing a game or watching video apps like Netflix.
The PS Camera would become even more attractive when Live-TV cable provider apps start coming to the PS4 & folks could group video chat via Skype/Google Hangouts while watching sports especially during the football season.
The PS Camera would become even more attractive when Live-TV cable provider apps start coming to the PS4 & folks could group video chat via Skype/Google Hangouts while watching sports especially during the football season.
backbreaker65
Banned
Now that it's rumored that the OS is memory footprint is larger than what was previously reported. Over/Under on Some camera functionality is in the OS?
I'm going with 100%
Redeem Codes
Voice commands
Facial Recognition
Are in demand and will be front and center.
I'm going with 100%
Redeem Codes
Voice commands
Facial Recognition
Are in demand and will be front and center.
Mmm-hmm, I expect a lot of these features to eventually be on the PS4.