Will Price of Games be a reason to pick up Move instead of Kinect?

[daroamer]

AnthonyW86 said:

daroamer said:

AnthonyW86 said:

I don't get why people keep implying that Kinect get's it's capabilities from somekind of hardware advantage, it's just a camera and mostly the same as a PS Eye. It's the software that makes the difference, Microsoft have said so themselves on numerous occassions. The Kinect camera just feeds information to the 360 the same way as the PS Eye does with the PS3, it's the software that tells the 360 what it can do with the information.

That's why Kinect is so expensive for ''just a camera'', they need to earn back the development costs for the software.

Everything you said is pretty much wrong in every respect.  Try reading up on the actual technology.

No it's not, the only thing Kinect has extra is an depth sensor wich is needed because otherwise it wouldn't be able to track the player because there is no controller involved. Kinect was suppossed to have a dedicated chip aswell, but that was removed because it was to expensive, so now the X360 cpu has to do all the calculating.

The only thing different here is that Kinect can track all the body parts, instead of just a controller used by the player. The difficulty in achieving full body motion tracking doesn't lie in adding an extra sensor for depth, it lies in the software that has to decode all the information. And that is what i'm trying to point out here, Kinect doesn't really track anything it just ''films'', it's the X360 that has to recognize all the motions.

Please show me where Microsoft said it's just a camera.  It should be easy to find since they've said it on "numerous occasions".

In fact, they say the opposite - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC0FNNPs61k

A 3D depth sensor is the same as a 2D RGB camera how?

And AGAIN, if the PS Eye is basically the same, why did Sony need to create controllers?  Why didn't they just make software like Microsoft did (apparently)?