Microsoft Kinect: Why it failed to do what it was supposed to do even though it was successful

[oniyide]

S.T.A.G.E. said:

oniyide said:

S.T.A.G.E. said:

MARCUSDJACKSON said:
my 2 good friends STAGE and Sales. good stuff guys. keep the facts coming.

move, eyetoy eyecamera, and Kinect eyetoy/camra ripoff, and whtever else you want to call it, all od then failed to live up to thier hype.

wht significant hardcore games were worth the purchase of a Kinect? move had some hardcore games yet only 2 were worth the purhcase. kinect is only good for its multi-media uses.

Wii did motion controls best end of story.

 

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell him. The Wii had the best showcasing of motion controls the whole gen with some great first party  games and a handful of third party, but my point to him is that the Move had the most concrete potential to make a core title than all of the peripherals even though proper games werent made for it. Microsoft could do really well with the core if they follow Sony and Nintendo with nunchucks that are read by the Kinect. Essentially if they follow Sony's lead but market it big, people will act like its something new to the same effect of the Eyetoy market failure.

Gotta disagree with this, I think Ninty just marketed right, but there motion controls sucked as well. We got alot of shovelware and even those were barely accurate. Then when they did finally release something to make it work, the way it should have done from day 1, that thing got even less support than Move. All three are bad in one form or another

Im not talking about how the Move did, but rather the potential of the tech to make a core game. It was essentially the Wii and Kinect combined, capable (if devs had the time to work on it, especially Ubisoft) of making a game that could spawn a new genre.

fair enough