insomniac17 said:
I was under the impression that they thought the technology was there, it just wasn't cost effective. "So when we were working with the 3D cameras we felt the cost of the camera outweighed the advantages of what it offered. " That quote is near the top of the first page. "Eurogamer: Did you have a stressful meeting with the execs when you pitched Move? Anton Mikhailov: Yes. And, actually, at that time we were investigating a lot of technologies. We were looking into 3D cameras like Kinect. That started way back in 2002, so we already by that time had stopped that research. We worked with the London Studio guys on that."
It looks like the research was done a while ago. So... it's not that the tech isn't advanced enough, or that it isn't there, it seems to me that it was more of... at the time they looked into it, the tech wasn't where they would have liked it to be, at the cost they would have liked it to be. |
All this means is that sony didnt want to waste more money on the eyetoy which wasnt a breakthrough success and wasnt the direction they want to go with gameplay interface.
based on the manufacturing costs of kinect and the article itself we dont know that microsoft have invested in the new technologies to make kinect the masterpiece it could be. all we know is theres a lot of things it cant do, and that these tech guys think that they can compensate for its shortcomings with good software.








