Quantcast
Will putting kinect in every box really change anything?

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Will putting kinect in every box really change anything?

Yes, yes it will. Remember how awesome XBL was when it launched? Of course not, because it wasn't. Well with the 360, XBL 2.0 found it's fulfillment and the industry is much better for it. I see something similar happening with Kinect 2.0.



Around the Network

I completely agree. Microsoft would be smart to sell it separately, like Sony are. I just don't get Kinect. They are losing so many sales because of it. If it weren't for that, I might have considered the XB1 first before the PS4. I'm sure a lot of people are thinking the same way.



Adinnieken said:
ChrolloLucilfer said:
Adinnieken said:
ChrolloLucilfer said:
Adinnieken said:
wilco said:
ChrolloLucilfer said:
Making the Kinect with the X1 mandatory seem a major mistake to me. The Xbox brand very reliant on third party titles and third party want an equal split between Sony/Microsoft, as if one console becomes to dominate over the other console theirs lesser competition on royalties fees. It's simply not in third party interest to spend extra money to make either xbox1/ps4 version superior to one or the other, unless they get paid handsomely for it.

If they want Kinect to be major selling point for the X1 they can only realistically rely on their own first party development. Looking at Kinect past track record on the Xbox 360, they look likely to struggle to make any worthwhile titles themselves for Kinect 2.


Great point. Even if there is a kinect with every xbox most developers aren't developing solely for xbox so that will not be their only consideration. Will multiplatform titles really bother trying to add features for kinect when the other console doesn't have kinect or even a mandatory eye camera?

My guess is that developers will actually develop common features for both Kinect and the PS4 Camera because they have shared features.  The difference is that for Kinect, developers know they'll likely be used.  With the PS4, only if the person has the PS4 Camera.

For example, the developer will offer voice controls on both the Xbox One and the PS4.  Developers will do the development once, and if it doesn't get used on the PS4 then it doesn't get used.  But it's there.

Developing Common features is a good possiblity. But only If the PS4 Camera sell well enough to bother using that feature. If the Camera goes on to sell only a couple a million, I can't see many Third Party jumping at the chance to use it's features.

It's about efficiency.  If I spend X amount of time building a feature for the Xbox One or Xbox 360, I want utilize that as much as possible.  If Sony builds in the same capabilities for voice recognition as the Xbox One, or the developer creates something that works passibly, then they'll do it.  If a game for the Xbox One builds in a face mapping feature, then in all likelihood the developer would include that in the PS4 version.  Just because I create the hooks, doesn't mean I force that feature upon you.  I can do an IF statement to check and see if you have the necessary hardware to support a feature.

If the PS4 Camera has a good attach rate with the PS4, then yes it would be worthwhile for Third Party creating Kinect based features on X1. As there would be potential audience for those types feature to be ported over for PS4 Camera use. But If the PS4 Camera sales are poor, why would a Third Party Developer spend their own time and money on developing features which only X1 audience is going to use to any large degree? It would be a waste resources which could be saved or spent on other aspects of the game developement instead.

Code is never wasted unless it's deleted.

If I build the code and it works, I have that code today and in the future.  I can plug it in whenever and whereever I want.  Yes, I may spend lots of hours upfront building that logic, but the cost in the future is 0 to implement it.  So if I build it once for Kinect, I can reuse it a thousand times or as many times as I need.  The same with the PS4 Camera.  In fact, it's better to frontload that early in the generation so it's done now, rather than wait until later.  Console manufacturers are willing to throw money at games that use features they want games to become familiar with, and down the road there will be new, bigger features you're going to want to use that will require your time and resources for. 

But the situation you are describing is Microsoft footing the bill for Third Party to develops these features? Which is the point I made in my very first post in this debate. It's easy enough for Microsoft to pay Third Party to develop exclusive Kinect features but it's another to get Third Party to actual bother to spend their own budget on said such Kinect Features, that’s the problem.



ChrolloLucilfer said:

But the situation you are describing is Microsoft footing the bill for Third Party to develops these features? Which is the point I made in my very first post in this debate. It's easy enough for Microsoft to pay Third Party to develop exclusive Kinect features but it's another to get Third Party to actual bother to spend their own budget on said such Kinect Features, that’s the problem.

Once that code is generated, they need only implement it in a future game.

For instance.  If Microsoft paid for the Kinect features in Skyrim, so what?  If the features Bethesda implemented, such as voice commands, proved popular, then they need only implement the code in their next game.  Bethesda owns the code.  There's no cost to reusing code.  Sure, you might tighten and clean the code, but overall, as long as the code was 100% functional as it was originall implemented, then it's going to work.

I highly doubt there is a significant difference between the API for Kinect and Kinect 2, since you're quite literally just waiting for Kinect to tell you whether or not it received a desired/specified command, or in the case of gesturing, the x, y coordinates of the cursor.  It isn't much different from coding for a mic or game controller. 



tres said:
ChrolloLucilfer said:
If the PS4 Camera has a good attach rate with the PS4, then yes it would be worthwhile for Third Party creating Kinect based features on X1. As there would be potential audience for those types feature to be ported over for PS4 Camera use. But If the PS4 Camera sales are poor, why would a Third Party Developer spend their own time and money on developing features which only X1 audience is going to use to any large degree? It would be a waste resources which could be saved or spent on other aspects of the game developement instead.

lol well we all know sony killed any hope of that.  so 3rd party devs have to do what they have to do.  factually, it just take  great ideas and not all the bitching by gamers just because its a kinect game.  some non dance kinect games had potential but writers killed it before it got started.  with kinect you had to have some form of coordination about yourself or it would fail.  steel batallion was one of those games.  the actually game just wasnt that great.  but you had some people myself included that had no problem with the controls and others playing it like an idiot (angry joe style).  should 3rd party developers ignore the ps4 touchpad because x1 dont have it? 

The Touch-pad on the PS4 has two major advantage over Kinect 2. Firstly the Touch-pad is a control method which has been used for a lot longer than Kinect and has already been fully accepted. Laptops have been using Touch pad as alternative to the mouse since the late 1990's. So any game developed on the PC which uses the mouse/Touch-pad is now a lot easier to be ported over to the ps4 in terms of controls. Ports of existing Tablet games are more a possibility now for PS4 and maybe even of some of the Wii U games touch based control could be ported over as well.

The second and the most important differences between the two is that the Inclusion of the Touch-pad is not a massive cost expense compared to Kinect. So even if Third Party ignore the Touch-pad it's not that much an issue to the PS4 in terms of their direction or an added cost to PS4 consoles. Kinect 2 on the other hand has forced Microsoft to go with a weaker system and 100$ higher price. Making the Kinect 2 mandatory at the cost of power and price shows Microsoft are making a big deal over Kinect 2 features. So if the Third Parties ignore Kinect it's would a massive problem for Microsoft to justify the Kinect 2 with only their software to showcase it.



Around the Network
Adinnieken said:
ChrolloLucilfer said:

But the situation you are describing is Microsoft footing the bill for Third Party to develops these features? Which is the point I made in my very first post in this debate. It's easy enough for Microsoft to pay Third Party to develop exclusive Kinect features but it's another to get Third Party to actual bother to spend their own budget on said such Kinect Features, that’s the problem.

Once that code is generated, they need only implement it in a future game.

For instance.  If Microsoft paid for the Kinect features in Skyrim, so what?  If the features Bethesda implemented, such as voice commands, proved popular, then they need only implement the code in their next game.  Bethesda owns the code.  There's no cost to reusing code.  Sure, you might tighten and clean the code, but overall, as long as the code was 100% functional as it was originall implemented, then it's going to work.

I highly doubt there is a significant difference between the API for Kinect and Kinect 2, since you're quite literally just waiting for Kinect to tell you whether or not it received a desired/specified command, or in the case of gesturing, the x, y coordinates of the cursor.  It isn't much different from coding for a mic or game controller. 

Even with an existing made code it will take time to implement and test said feature for every game it used on. With the tightness of budgets and especially in the terms of getting games out on time. I don't see much demand on the part of Third party to bother with said features which have already been given a some what lukewarm demand from the majority dedicated gamer.





ChrolloLucilfer said:
Adinnieken said:

Once that code is generated, they need only implement it in a future game.

For instance.  If Microsoft paid for the Kinect features in Skyrim, so what?  If the features Bethesda implemented, such as voice commands, proved popular, then they need only implement the code in their next game.  Bethesda owns the code.  There's no cost to reusing code.  Sure, you might tighten and clean the code, but overall, as long as the code was 100% functional as it was originall implemented, then it's going to work.

I highly doubt there is a significant difference between the API for Kinect and Kinect 2, since you're quite literally just waiting for Kinect to tell you whether or not it received a desired/specified command, or in the case of gesturing, the x, y coordinates of the cursor.  It isn't much different from coding for a mic or game controller. 

Even with an existing made code it will take time to implement and test said feature for every game it used on. With the tightness of budgets and especially in the terms of getting games out on time. I don't see much demand on the part of Third party to bother with said features which have already been given a some what lukewarm demand from the majority dedicated gamer.



The time it takes to implement is equivalent to copying pasting code, because that's exactly what you're doing.  If you're smart, you've put all your code for such purposes in a library and the only thing you do is make a reference to that library in your code.  Since you've already used that library, you know it works, and if you're using a good IDE, it'll tell you if your code is broken before you compile it.  So, geez oh mighty, it isn't that big of a deal! 

Yes, you will need to test it, but it isn't as if you should expect broken code.  Fact is if you've done everything correctly it will work exactly as you expect it to.

Have you ever coded?  Have you not re-used code?  Is coding a such a challenge for you that once you get something to work properly, you're unable to get it to work properly again?  I'm confused as to how or why you see this as such a big challenge, because it isn't.  Smart coders code once, and reuse many.  What do you think a game engine is?  A series of code people copy and paste into a single document?  No!  It's a series of library files that you reference in your code and make calls to those library files. 



I don't think it will be widely used but it will get more support than the original did. I just hope developers don't use it in gimmicky ways or just for the sake of it. Use it if necessary.



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

I think it will put them in a Nintendo situation. It will only be used for first party Microsoft games, and if they focus too much on it, third parties will avoid it because it does require too much extra coding for multi-platforms. Initially they will get a lot of support, but 2 years from now it will be a curse



Adinnieken said:
ChrolloLucilfer said:

Even with an existing made code it will take time to implement and test said feature for every game it used on. With the tightness of budgets and especially in the terms of getting games out on time. I don't see much demand on the part of Third party to bother with said features which have already been given a some what lukewarm demand from the majority dedicated gamer.

The time it takes to implement is equivalent to copying pasting code, because that's exactly what you're doing.  If you're smart, you've put all your code for such purposes in a library and the only thing you do is make a reference to that library in your code.  Since you've already used that library, you know it works, and if you're using a good IDE, it'll tell you if your code is broken before you compile it.  So, geez oh mighty, it isn't that big of a deal! 

Yes, you will need to test it, but it isn't as if you should expect broken code.  Fact is if you've done everything correctly it will work exactly as you expect it to.

Have you ever coded?  Have you not re-used code?  Is coding a such a challenge for you that once you get something to work properly, you're unable to get it to work properly again?  I'm confused as to how or why you see this as such a big challenge, because it isn't.  Smart coders code once, and reuse many.  What do you think a game engine is?  A series of code people copy and paste into a single document?  No!  It's a series of library files that you reference in your code and make calls to those library files. 

Even with re-using code, it still takes time to figure out how to apply it to new games. The more complex the input method the more testing is needed. For example is it physically possible to make certain gestures one after another in the allotted time. Does the game need to be slowed down to allow for gestures to be completed or commands to be spoken in between the actions.
It's not just receiving the inputs from Kinect, it's also tailoring the game to an extra input method, and balancing the gameplay between both. A lot of developers don't even bother anymore to optimize a game for mouse use on PC, certainly those APIs are mature enough.

Sure some tacked on Kinect use is easy to add in the game, I wouldn't expect much from it from 3rd parties though.