By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Why Sony passed on Kinect

OntheEdgeofthemirror on 30 November 2010
Porcupine_I said:

lets just pretend for one second that Sony had not abandoned Kinect technology

let us imagine Sony came up with that exact same product that Microsoft has released now, with exact the same launch games and tech behind it.

let us further pretend Microsoft had chosen to go the other way and develop a Motion controller with buttons and tracking in 3D Space.

is there anyone supporting Kinect right now who could honestly say that they would buy a PS3 in that case, because Sony has the better motion controls?

Or would it rather be that the ridicule would never end for trying to sell the Eyetoy again?

i don't expect an answer, just ask yourself people, you know the truth.

I can't speak for anyone else but if Sony released kinect it would have been received the exact same as pseye and ignored by most, the only reason kinect seems to be a success is MSes massive marketing and hype efforts, and there are a few other things that people often forget about, move uses the pseye, so Sony is supporting their existing hardware and the fans who bought it (I feel that almost anyone who had a pseye is going to get get a wand) and the fact that Sony patched games that were already out and is making a ton of them controllable with either seems like something MS just wouldn't do, so if they did switch things would be looking alot different and I honestly don't know if I would be complementing MS or not but I know I wouldn't be complementing Sony if they came out with kinect 



Around the Network
OntheEdgeofthemirror on 30 November 2010
A203D said:
insomniac17 said:
ramses01 said:
Jinova said:

No I read it, several times.

"That's the long-winded answer of why we stopped that research. We basically got to a point where we felt we understood the limitations of the tech. Sony as a group wanted to do a motion controller that could work with a broad variety of games."

That quote alone sums up the article for me.  Its limited, deal with it.

I admit, its a cool tech for interfacing and menus  etc..., but for games?  not so much

LOL, thanks for the quote proving my point.

I was under the impression that they thought the technology was there, it just wasn't cost effective.

"So when we were working with the 3D cameras we felt the cost of the camera outweighed the advantages of what it offered. "

That quote is near the top of the first page. 

What I got out of that is that they looked into it years ago and decided that it cost too much for what they wanted to do. Now may be a different story. It looks like they stopped looking into 3D camera stuff before Move. 

"Eurogamer: Did you have a stressful meeting with the execs when you pitched Move?

Anton Mikhailov: Yes. And, actually, at that time we were investigating a lot of technologies. We were looking into 3D cameras like Kinect. That started way back in 2002, so we already by that time had stopped that research. We worked with the London Studio guys on that."

It looks like the research was done a while ago.

So... it's not that the tech isn't advanced enough, or that it isn't there, it seems to me that it was more of... at the time they looked into it, the tech wasn't where they would have liked it to be, at the cost they would have liked it to be.

 

All this means is that sony didnt want to waste more money on the eyetoy which wasnt a breakthrough success and wasnt the direction they want to go with gameplay interface.

based on the manufacturing costs of kinect and the article itself we dont know that microsoft have invested in the new technologies to make kinect the masterpiece it could be. all we know is theres a lot of things it cant do, and that these tech guys think that they can compensate for its shortcomings with good software.

I don't think it's just that, the article makes it pretty clear that there are very few advantages of a 3D camera over a 2D one in their current forms and the few advantages it does have the glow ball makes up for and has tons of advantages of it's own, so from a tech perspective it was a pretty no brainier, cheaper and more versatile vs more expensive and limited 



OntheEdgeofthemirror on 30 November 2010
Darth Tigris said:
Porcupine_I said:

lets just pretend for one second that Sony had not abandoned Kinect technology

let us imagine Sony came up with that exact same product that Microsoft has released now, with exact the same launch games and tech behind it.

let us further pretend Microsoft had chosen to go the other way and develop a Motion controller with buttons and tracking in 3D Space.

is there anyone supporting Kinect right now who could honestly say that they would buy a PS3 in that case, because Sony has the better motion controls?

Or would it rather be that the ridicule would never end for trying to sell the Eyetoy again?

i don't expect an answer, just ask yourself people, you know the truth.

Can't speak for others, but I think that Sony coming up with Kinect instead of MS actually would've made more sense considering their history with the EyeToy and PS Eye.  The reality that MS took their basic idea and significantly enhanced it into Kinect (which, is a big success even early on) while Sony gave up on the camera path they were on and simply enhanced Nintendo's strategy is what doesn't make sense to me.

But maybe it really was a software solution and sheer force of will.  I remember MS had a motion controller on the PC and it did nothing and they dropped it but Nintendo wanted to make it work and DID.  Plus technology that might not be workable 4 years ago CAN work now (remember initial polygonal efforts?).

This article only proves that Sony's engineers couldn't or wouldn't solve the 3D camera limitations and MS (so far) has.

Significantly I think not, the fact that it wasn't a significant hardware advantage is the main reason Sony passed it up, and frankly the only reason it seems(seriously doubt they'll break even even if they sell 5 mil by the end of the year) to be a commercial success is because of how much MS is advertising and hyping it, if Sony came out with kinect with the exact same games kinect has now with the hype and advertising they have for move it would have been received FAR more poorly 



kafar on 30 November 2010
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:
Porcupine_I said:

lets just pretend for one second that Sony had not abandoned Kinect technology

let us imagine Sony came up with that exact same product that Microsoft has released now, with exact the same launch games and tech behind it.

let us further pretend Microsoft had chosen to go the other way and develop a Motion controller with buttons and tracking in 3D Space.

is there anyone supporting Kinect right now who could honestly say that they would buy a PS3 in that case, because Sony has the better motion controls?

Or would it rather be that the ridicule would never end for trying to sell the Eyetoy again?

i don't expect an answer, just ask yourself people, you know the truth.

I can't speak for anyone else but if Sony released kinect it would have been received the exact same as pseye and ignored by most, the only reason kinect seems to be a success is MSes massive marketing and hype efforts, and there are a few other things that people often forget about, move uses the pseye, so Sony is supporting their existing hardware and the fans who bought it (I feel that almost anyone who had a pseye is going to get get a wand) and the fact that Sony patched games that were already out and is making a ton of them controllable with either seems like something MS just wouldn't do, so if they did switch things would be looking alot different and I honestly don't know if I would be complementing MS or not but I know I wouldn't be complementing Sony if they came out with kinect 

i agreed. But it's Sony's fault that Eyetoy wasn't huge. Sometimes, Sony maybe focus on core gamers a bit too much. Yes, core gamers buy more games but just think about how much money they can make off Eyetoy sales. It was a missed opportunity. Now MS is picking this up and may enjoy good profit from peripheral sales.

MS's marketing has always been superior this gen. I have to give them credits. Also, their software dept is pretty good too. Kinect now looks quite good compare to what they shown in E3. The fundamental flaws are still there but MS is good at introducing new SKUs so that early adopters will be hyped to buy the new SKU again. Just see how much new feature 360 slims now has compared with the launch 360. PS3 slim, on the other hand, has less feature. way to go, sony  :|



OntheEdgeofthemirror on 30 November 2010
dreamcast210 said:
Say whatever you want, but your definition of "hardcore" and many others over the past few years is flawed. The term has been twisted into meaning gamers who play only a particular genre. It would be like having a "hardcore" movie watcher who only sees action flicks. It's time for true hardcore gamers to take the word and its meaning back: someone who loves video games, plays them, lives them, breathes them!

 

Well not anywhere near a complete definition I am content to say hardcore means MORE then arm flailing, on rails and side to side, something kinect has not been capable of as of yet (joy ride is side-side on rails (the vid 3rd without moving), table tennis is arm flailing side to side, most of the others are just one of the 3)



Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 30 November 2010
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:
Porcupine_I said:

lets just pretend for one second that Sony had not abandoned Kinect technology

let us imagine Sony came up with that exact same product that Microsoft has released now, with exact the same launch games and tech behind it.

let us further pretend Microsoft had chosen to go the other way and develop a Motion controller with buttons and tracking in 3D Space.

is there anyone supporting Kinect right now who could honestly say that they would buy a PS3 in that case, because Sony has the better motion controls?

Or would it rather be that the ridicule would never end for trying to sell the Eyetoy again?

i don't expect an answer, just ask yourself people, you know the truth.

I can't speak for anyone else but if Sony released kinect it would have been received the exact same as pseye and ignored by most, the only reason kinect seems to be a success is MSes massive marketing and hype efforts, and there are a few other things that people often forget about, move uses the pseye, so Sony is supporting their existing hardware and the fans who bought it (I feel that almost anyone who had a pseye is going to get get a wand) and the fact that Sony patched games that were already out and is making a ton of them controllable with either seems like something MS just wouldn't do, so if they did switch things would be looking alot different and I honestly don't know if I would be complementing MS or not but I know I wouldn't be complementing Sony if they came out with kinect 


This is y much what I was thinking. I'm sure if the PS eye 3D or whatever was made by Sony we wouldn't have the situation we have with Kinect now. That's $.5billion working for you folks.



OntheEdgeofthemirror on 30 November 2010
kafar said:
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:
Porcupine_I said:

lets just pretend for one second that Sony had not abandoned Kinect technology

let us imagine Sony came up with that exact same product that Microsoft has released now, with exact the same launch games and tech behind it.

let us further pretend Microsoft had chosen to go the other way and develop a Motion controller with buttons and tracking in 3D Space.

is there anyone supporting Kinect right now who could honestly say that they would buy a PS3 in that case, because Sony has the better motion controls?

Or would it rather be that the ridicule would never end for trying to sell the Eyetoy again?

i don't expect an answer, just ask yourself people, you know the truth.

I can't speak for anyone else but if Sony released kinect it would have been received the exact same as pseye and ignored by most, the only reason kinect seems to be a success is MSes massive marketing and hype efforts, and there are a few other things that people often forget about, move uses the pseye, so Sony is supporting their existing hardware and the fans who bought it (I feel that almost anyone who had a pseye is going to get get a wand) and the fact that Sony patched games that were already out and is making a ton of them controllable with either seems like something MS just wouldn't do, so if they did switch things would be looking alot different and I honestly don't know if I would be complementing MS or not but I know I wouldn't be complementing Sony if they came out with kinect 

i agreed. But it's Sony's fault that Eyetoy wasn't huge. Sometimes, Sony maybe focus on core gamers a bit too much. Yes, core gamers buy more games but just think about how much money they can make off Eyetoy sales. It was a missed opportunity. Now MS is picking this up and may enjoy good profit from peripheral sales.

MS's marketing has always been superior this gen. I have to give them credits. Also, their software dept is pretty good too. Kinect now looks quite good compare to what they shown in E3. The fundamental flaws are still there but MS is good at introducing new SKUs so that early adopters will be hyped to buy the new SKU again. Just see how much new feature 360 slims now has compared with the launch 360. PS3 slim, on the other hand, has less feature. way to go, sony  :|

MS is kinda built on hype and marketing, most of their "exclusives" that they hyped are on ps3 now (bioshock, star ocean 4, gta 4 episodes, ME2, waiting for splinter cell announcement, I'm sure theres more but can't think of any on top of my head) and while 360 might be a ton better compared to it's launch counterpart, it's launch counterpart was absolutely horrible, and while ps3 might have less 2 less features it still has far more then 360, and it's still by far the most bang for your buck 



A203D on 30 November 2010
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:

Significantly I think not, the fact that it wasn't a significant hardware advantage is the main reason Sony passed it up, and frankly the only reason it seems(seriously doubt they'll break even even if they sell 5 mil by the end of the year) to be a commercial success is because of how much MS is advertising and hyping it, if Sony came out with kinect with the exact same games kinect has now with the hype and advertising they have for move it would have been received FAR more poorly 

Yeah, well we have evidence in the form of eyetoy to support this, which wasnt a success or a breakthrough anyway. but i agree if sony was trying to push this, it would be a disaster. its because microsoft have so much money to make it work, and they seem to have invested in games that appeal to the casuals so thats why its working. if it was the other way round, it just wouldnt work. well its up to the gamers now, i dont think kinect will become the big thing microsoft want to be based on the article, theres simply too many limitations. of course people are buying it, but how many people are buying an xbox for it??



OntheEdgeofthemirror on 30 November 2010
A203D said:
OntheEdgeofthemirror said:

Significantly I think not, the fact that it wasn't a significant hardware advantage is the main reason Sony passed it up, and frankly the only reason it seems(seriously doubt they'll break even even if they sell 5 mil by the end of the year) to be a commercial success is because of how much MS is advertising and hyping it, if Sony came out with kinect with the exact same games kinect has now with the hype and advertising they have for move it would have been received FAR more poorly 

Yeah, well we have evidence in the form of eyetoy to support this, which wasnt a success or a breakthrough anyway. but i agree if sony was trying to push this, it would be a disaster. its because microsoft have so much money to make it work, and they seem to have invested in games that appeal to the casuals so thats why its working. if it was the other way round, it just wouldnt work. well its up to the gamers now, i dont think kinect will become the big thing microsoft want to be based on the article, theres simply too many limitations. of course people are buying it, but how many people are buying an xbox for it??

The money isn't going into the tech it's going into advertisement, kinect isn't a breakthrough and the eyetoy was a success (it turned a profit) but MS has managed to alter public perception so much to make people think kinect is amazing and new and the eye toy was a massive failure, when as it stands the pseye has made sony far more profit then kinect can once you factor in R&D, development costs and the big one MSes advertisement budget, they are going to need to sell like 10 million kinects atleast to break even so people think kinect did alot better then eyetoy in reality it can easily do alot worse and as I pointed out before wii delivered on giving the casuals more and better where I don't think kinect can in 6 months people won't be so forgiving in the quality of the games 



billsalias on 30 November 2010
jneul said:
dreamcast210 said:
jneul said:
dreamcast210 said:

Sorry folks. Sony dropped the ball and put it on a controller. Kinect works great for me and anyone I've had over to try it thinks it's amazing and they want to purchase it. It will change the game. Next year at this time, let's discuss just how much the gaming landscape has changed because of Kinect.


each to their own lots of ppl will have fun on it, but ill stick to my move hardcore thanks

Define hardcore? Because I think the term has been transformed over the past few years to entail gamers who only play M rated games with plenty of violence.

Hardcore to me is a person who loves video games and playing them. The genre doesn't matter. Of course we all like depth to our experience if we are hardcore. Here's an example:

A wonderful moment in table tennis in Kinect Sports was when I stepped back to play away from the table hitting the ball to my online opponent. After 2-3 times of this, setting a somewhat slower pace of the ball being returned to my opponent, I stepped towards the table as close as possible and then hit the ball had. The result was a return that went to my opponent at a faster pace than they were expecting and giving them no time to react to hit the ball.

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure Move is good fun. But having no controller in your hand is a freeing and liberating experience. And I am completely enjoying this new way to play.


sorry dude i did the whole controlerless thing with eyetoy and trust me kinect does not offer anything new over eyetoy yet, but with the hardcore apps coming out hopefully that will change, but the hardcore apps will require a controller defeating ms slogan "you are the controller".

First, Kinect offers an important feature over eyetoy, depth. For some reason you keep minimizing this as unimportant but it is critical. This feature has already been used extensively in launch titles. For example Dance Central has many moves that require you to cross arms and legs in front of your body and put them in the correct position in 3d space, this could not be detected with a 2d camera setup. This also allows you to use your forearm as a pointer while in front of your body, something very natural and not possible without the depth information.

Second, what part of hard core gaming requires a controller? Yes it would not be easy, if possible at all, to map existing controller schemes onto Kinect but who says a deep complex game experience cannot be designed around it? To be clear, I am not saying all games could be built around Kinect I am saying there are hard core games that can be.

Third you do not lose the ability to play some games without a controller if some games require one. And even if this does dilute the MS marketing message, so what? Does that prevent you from enjoying the game in any way?

I do not think Kinect, or Move for that matter, should be the only interface to a gaming system, but I feel they do provide a different experience from traditional controllers and add value to their systems respectively.