'A Kinect shooter would be horribly boring', says Ghost Recon dev

[Rainbird]

oniyide said:

Rainbird said:

It's all about investment for a developer. If voice recognition isn't something that seems likely to improve your game, then why include or even experiment with it, if it's going to be a big investment to integrate into the game? Mass Effect 3 does experimentation. BioWare wants to see if this is something gamers want and whether it will improve the game. And the easiest way to experiment with it is through Kinect by the looks of things. I'm sure if becomes an essential feature, it will move over to other platforms as well, but until developers know that gamers want it, why invest a disproportionate amount of time and effort in it?

Sorry still dont buy it.  All your questions can be answered by one word: Money. Are you trying to tell me that MS didnt give Bioware some money and/or favors to implement voice recognition just to boost their own Kinect product? Bioware did actually work out of the goodness of their hearts?? Yeah right.  MS wants that Kinect label on as much games as they possibly can. If Bioware actually cared to experiment, why just limit it to one product, ok sure the PS3 version isnt going to do 360 numbers, but the PC version will do just as much, if not more. Where is their voice recognition?? 

Money is always a concern. Maybe BioWare thinks that having voice recognition on the 360 will pay off if they can attract a few Kinect consumers who wouldn't otherwise have bought the game, and at the same time, they can experiment with voice recognition without making a huge investment in it. If it turns out to work really well, maybe they'll implement fully for their next game.

I'm not saying Microsoft couldn't have persuaded them to do it, but why assume there is money involved? Sony convinced Ken Levine to use the Move in Bioshock Infinite, and no money exchanged hands there. Why assume that Microsoft couldn't make a good case for Kinect for developers and that money had to be involved?