By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
justinian on 25 August 2009
Edit Thread
gergroy said:
Carl2291 said:
gergroy said:
Carl2291 said:
Even if that is true, it is still being marketted as a controller free thing.

As RPG said earlier, using a controller defeats the purpose of Natal.

So once again... no, i am not being silly.

lol, so the fact that ps3 is marketed as a game machine must mean I can't watch blu ray movies on it because it defeats the purpose?  Or that I can't browse the internet on the ps3 because it isn't marketed for that?  Can't play music off the hard drive of my ps3 or 360 because it isn't marketed for that?

Since when does marketing lingo determine the purpose of a product?  It's a very silly argument.

PS3 is marketted as all of the things you mentioned.

Natal is being strongly marketted as having NO controller. Having to use a controller after saying all that would be indeed... silly.

Alex Kipman: Absolutely. We see there being three types of game. We love the [existing] controller, it's not going anywhere and there will continue to be games that are specifically made to only work with a controller. We'll have games that are specifically designed to work only with Natal - not just arcadey games, but real, hardcore, triple-A titles.

Then you'll have some games that are essentially a hybrid - games that work both with the controller and with Natal

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/e3-post-natal-discussion-interview

The hybrid makes a nonsense of the no controller claim.

If this happens EU courts can have a bonanza day claiming false or misleading information.

Ultimately he is not speaking on the behalf of MS. He is just speaking what he thinks. The thought of controller free claims probably never entered his mind.

Besides Sony can easily use the eye to the same effect.