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

Forums - Sony Discussion - Tretton: “To Force Every Consumer” To Have a Camera “Ends up Coming up a Little Bit Short”, “It Should be a Choice”

enditall727 on 01 July 2013
tuscaniman99 said:
Well when Xbox One gets dropped in price to match the PS4 next year I guess it will be a bonus to have Kinect.


What makes you so sure about that happening?



Around the Network
Zizzla_Rachet on 01 July 2013
Dgc1808 said:
Zizzla_Rachet said:
When Comparing a massive Failure for two straight generartions to an Industry success.... You should claim that you don't want to force the third iteration of said failure to your customers....Maybe Third time is the charm?....Well Maybe not since it has no games....

Eyetoy was a success. PS Eye on PS3 was poorly supported but Eyetoy on PS2 did very well.


I actually got to play the Ps2 one at a friends house..It sucked so bad..Which is why I skipped Kinect..



 



SvennoJ on 01 July 2013
bananaking21 said:
enditall727 said:
 


Yea but it's still not required

 

I do see what you're saying though since the online is tied to PS Plus now


but it is required to play online, thats his point. he is saying we dont want to force the consumers by adding the camera, but they are forcing the consumers to buy PS+ if they want to play online

Flawed analogy.

First of all you are also required to buy the camera if you want to play camera based games.
If you want to play single player only why pay a higher price for the console to subsidize the online infrastructure? If online multiplayer was still free the console would have been at least 499.
Forcing ps+ on you would be only having a 449 option with a year ps+ included.

It sucks that people expect so much from multiplayer that it can't be free anymore. It would be nice if they still left peer-to-peer multiplayer outside the paywall. But I guess that is too much to ask from developers to support both, and might get confusing to consumers.
At least they're leaving the multimedia stuff outside the paywall, and you're only paying for actually using a service.

I rather have it free too, but let's be realistic, nothing is free. What would your preferred option be:
- More expensive console to pay for online infrastructure.
- Charging developers bandwidth fees which restricts demos, fixes, more expensive DLC.
- Games with multiplayer cost $70 or more.
- Online passes.
- Add breaks during online play sessions.



bananaking21 on 01 July 2013
Adinnieken said:
Isn't Sony the company that is mandating that every game features remote play for the PSV on PS4? Why is it OK for Sony to mandate companies include PSV cross/remote play for PS4 games, but it isn't OK for Microsoft to include Kinect in the box for a reasonable sum on day one?

Last I knew Microsoft wasn't mandating that gamer studios support Kinect, it's just there if they do decide to use it.


sony is mandating that every PS4 to have the ability to connect online, as well as play blueray disks, oh the audacity!



Dgc1808 on 01 July 2013
Adinnieken said:
Isn't Sony the company that is mandating that every game features remote play for the PSV on PS4? Why is it OK for Sony to mandate companies include PSV cross/remote play for PS4 games, but it isn't OK for Microsoft to include Kinect in the box for a reasonable sum on day one?

Last I knew Microsoft wasn't mandating that gamer studios support Kinect, it's just there if they do decide to use it.


Because it's confirmed to be a feature done with a chip onboard the PS4 specifically created for the system's streaming and recording features. Developers have to do next to nothing; it's a console wide feature. 



4 ≈ One

Around the Network
happydolphin on 01 July 2013

The PS4 forces me to pay for extra graphics. I don't think that's acceptable to consumers. Nintendo is doing it right.



Dgc1808 on 01 July 2013
enditall727 said:

T

Dgc1808 said:
Zizzla_Rachet said:
When Comparing a massive Failure for two straight generartions to an Industry success.... You should claim that you don't want to force the third iteration of said failure to your customers....Maybe Third time is the charm?....Well Maybe not since it has no games....

Eyetoy was a success. PS Eye on PS3 was poorly supported but Eyetoy on PS2 did very well.

Didn't the PS2 Eye Toy only have like 1 game on it? I cant really remember

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_compatible_with_EyeToy

Excluding EyetoyChat for obvious reasons, that's 19 games that required it. A decent amount that supported it.



4 ≈ One

enditall727 on 01 July 2013
happydolphin said:
The PS4 forces me to pay for extra graphics. I don't think that's acceptable to consumers. Nintendo is doing it right.


Lol!

 

Ninty forced us to pay for extra graphics aswell with Wii U lol



Alby_da_Wolf on 01 July 2013

I've read pros and cons of bundled or optional camera countless times now, but I still can decide what's the balance of each choice...



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


starcraft on 01 July 2013

Microsoft's problem is a lack of truly compelling software for the Kinect device.

However, there is a flip side to that. It only takes one truly inspiring piece of software (game or otherwise) to inspire the mainstream, and the value proposition of this generation will turn against Sony overnight! Without universal peripherals Sony just couldn't compete.

On the other hand, producing that inspiring piece of software is easier said than done.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS