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

Forums - Sony Discussion - 'Forced Camera Anti-Consumer' Says Sony

Tagged games:

Somini said:
Very true and everyone thinking logically knows it, unless you have a strong bias interfering with your logic.


Even if it was everyone does it. Sony forced Bluray. Nintendo forced Wii mote or whatever. It's part of the product that they are offering if you do not like that offer look for alternatives. Since when has companies including something that not everyone wants been frowned upon?



Around the Network
Smeags said:

Hush you.

No one's here to actually discuss the pros and cons of including a peripheral within your console package and how that affects the consumer and development ecosystem. We're talking about whether you're with Sony, or with Microsoft. You must choose, and once you do, there is no going back!

For Lord (Cerny/Ballmer)!

Team Cerny, then!



Max King of the Wild said:
TruckOSaurus said:

I think the comparison stands. The Blu-Ray did drive the cost of the PS3 up and it was a feature that not everybody wanted but if you wanted a PS3, you had no choice in the matter.

No. If the ps3 was a ps2 but with bluray then it wouldnt have been close to 600dollars (if sony was still willing to take a loss.. which they did with ps2 so im sure they would have.) The costly cell, wifi and included HDDraised the price and bluray was a natural progression

So including the Blu-Ray player cost 0$?



Signature goes here!

Talal said:

Even if it was everyone does it. Sony forced Bluray. Nintendo forced Wii mote or whatever. It's part of the product that they are offering if you do not like that offer look for alternatives. Since when has companies including something that not everyone wants been frowned upon?


sorry but wii mote and kinect arent even comparable. The kinect is not needed to play a game but is packed in no matter what. Wiimote was included but its how you played the game. Thats like saying phones force you to have a speaker and mic.



Somini said:
Very true and everyone thinking logically knows it, unless you have a strong bias interfering with your logic.

not really... 

it is pretty simple to be honest. if you want to sell a product with something which you see as essential part of the future of your product you sell it with every sold unit. that isn't anti-consumer since everyone who will like this feature in the next 5+ years will profit from the decision to sell kinect with every unit. 

consumers who are against it can obviously buy another console but consumers who like it will be very thankful that they will get more support for it because of the decision to have kinect with every sold console. 

is it consumer unfriendly that everyone has to pay for a touch pad and rumble in a ps4 controller if a controller without that would be much cheaper? or that you have to pay for different rumble motors in the xbox one controller? no, you put it in/on every controller if you want to see support for it as a company. the touch pad would be already dead before it really starts if you would have to buy ds4 controllers with touch pad separately. sure, that is a much cheaper problem but still, many people would be fine without it. 



Around the Network
TruckOSaurus said:

So including the Blu-Ray player cost 0$?


Thats absurd if thats what you gather from my post. Including a dvd drive in the 360 has costs too. As for the ps2. It was a choice of format. You would have more of a point talking about wifi or hdd but those were obviously more beneficial than bluray so you wouldnt dare say it



Max King of the Wild said:
TruckOSaurus said:

So including the Blu-Ray player cost 0$?


Thats absurd if thats what you gather from my post. Including a dvd drive in the 360 has costs too. As for the ps2. It was a choice of format. You would have more of a point talking about wifi or hdd but those were obviously more beneficial than bluray so you wouldnt dare say it

The 360 proved that you didn't need a Blu-Ray player for games in the 7th gen so Sony made everyone pay for the Blu-Ray drive when it wasn't necessary. That's my point.



Signature goes here!

Max King of the Wild said:
TruckOSaurus said:

I think the comparison stands. The Blu-Ray did drive the cost of the PS3 up and it was a feature that not everybody wanted but if you wanted a PS3, you had no choice in the matter.

No. If the ps3 was a ps2 but with bluray then it wouldnt have been close to 600dollars (if sony was still willing to take a loss.. which they did with ps2 so im sure they would have.) The costly cell, wifi and included HDDraised the price and bluray was a natural progression

i believe blu-ray was the most expensive part of the whole ps3. like 300 bucks production costs or something like that.



Max King of the Wild said:
Talal said:

Even if it was everyone does it. Sony forced Bluray. Nintendo forced Wii mote or whatever. It's part of the product that they are offering if you do not like that offer look for alternatives. Since when has companies including something that not everyone wants been frowned upon?


sorry but wii mote and kinect arent even comparable. The kinect is not needed to play a game but is packed in no matter what. Wiimote was included but its how you played the game. Thats like saying phones force you to have a speaker and mic.


Okay, outside gaming then. Why do some car manufacturers make cars with forced seat heating/cooling? Why do some cars have forced sensors? Why do some force you to have their infotainment system? Why does no one ever complain from those? 

I don't like Kinect at all and I'd rather have my console without it, but this stuff happens all the time there's no reason to pick on MS only.



TruckOSaurus said:

The 360 proved that you didn't need a Blu-Ray player for games in the 7th gen so Sony made everyone pay for the Blu-Ray drive when it wasn't necessary. That's my point.


Yes, but unlike the kinect without a disc drive the console is nonfuntioning. It was a format choice that needed to made. The comparison is absurd