By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 03 November 2012
Edit Thread
Jazz2K said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Jazz2K said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


I never set my expectations high, but it is good for multimedia use and simple things. I've used the Eyetoy and the Kinect  and to me its just a more powerful version of it that was hyped to be more. Trust me, if it had more potential than you say, Microsoft would've never had it and Sony would be using it by now.


How can I trust your judgement when they are severely biased agains't Kinect? You seem to think that Primesense did all the work behind Kinect when they presented the concept to Sony... well not really. Both Sony and Nintendo couldn't figure out how to make this work for games so they refused it. Microsoft in the other hand (a software company) saw how they could make it work for games by creating a software specificaly for Kinect, which they did. If I remember correctly it took them two years to make the software and hundreds unpon hundreds of positions possible for the human body to be recognize by the device. You guys just like to say that Primesense did all the job and MS just plugged it to the Xbox and magically, it worked...

What Eyetoy is is just a basic camera with a motion software attached to it. Motion cameras are not an invention of Sony and their first appearance was way before the Playstation. What Sony did with Eyetoy is essentially take what was already done and make it work with Playstation nothing more. Both technologies are very different. Not the same at all.


How is what I am saying biased against the Kinect? You the R&D interview didnt you? 

I'm sorry I did not read it when you first posted it as I though it would be a biased opinion piece again... but now I'm sure of it. They act like Kinect couldn't really offer much more than what Eye Toy offered except for tracking different body parts with less light. Their main issue was the lightning, if payers played with dimmed lights Eye Toy stopped tracking body parts... wow now it just tells me they don't know how Kinect works at all. What they were refering as a 3D depth camera isn't what Kinect is but more like what Primesense was working on. Guess what, motion camera and 3D sensors existed way before Playstation, I believe it was in the 60s or 70s I don't remember clearly but you can go wayyy back in history. 

Why I think you are biased and why the interview is pointless is because you guys don't know how Kinect works and what MS had to do to make it work. That thing they did (MS) was exactly what Sony couldn't even figure how to do. Seeing in the dark and tracking depth is great but Kinect sees your skeleton in complete darkness and know where in space your hands/feet/head/hips/etc are. Eye Toy is clueless about anything except for your face. If a developer wants to track your hands he'll have to come with a code that says that at that place a human has a hand and if you detect a movement it must be his hand so act like it is. And you better have a lot of light to make it happen... 

You are biased because you keep dissing a product and those who buy it without knowing jack sh** about it. I'm sorry but if you don't like something just ignore it or ask why it succeeds while you don't like it. People will respond and if answers don't fit with you then leave it be. All you do is try hard to convince people thay it's garbage and people that use it don't know why... they were caught on the add campaign. If a game has bad control but another has good control, is it the controller's fault or are the devs not knowing what they were doing? How is it so hard to apply this to Kinect, while some games naild it some were bad how is it Kinect's fault?

I'm done anyway... didn't think I would post more replies in this thread... chill out man, Kinect won't kill your family unless they buy it and try to jump on their head like that Assassin's Creed Kinect add... but I would blame the people, not the device... 


As I've said before, I've used the Kinect before, but then again, I've also used the Eyetoy and both are limited. They can be as powerful as you want but they are still limited without peripherals, Sony smartened up to that fact but their marketing sucked so what good did that do them? Microsofts marketing is good so if they make a peripheral like the move it would be as if no one ever noticed in the states. After that the little game that Crytek is making for the Kinect will work really well. I never denied that the Kinect was a great piece of casual kit, but then again if Sony wanted to do the same, they could with the Eyetoy as well. In the end it doesnt matter because they both failed in their own respective ways. Microsoft won by have a highly successful commercial product and Sony won by having the product with the most going for it as far as gaming is concerned. When you look at what they lack, thats how they failed (as I will put below) and also casual gaming on consoles will stay just that, casual.

1) Sony did it properly (in making the product), but sucks at marketing and the games were whatever. They alienated the casuals with their product and they can actually make a core title. It makes sense if you think about it. (IE: Can you play halo with the Kinect? Ok....well can you play Killzone with the move? Exactly) Sony was more focused on making a core device that actually had more concrete potential winning over casuals. 

2) Kinect had the more limited product for gaming, but kept it simple and more entertainment focused (which is pretty much as much as it can do without a peripheral). Its marketing was stellar and did great in the states. It was the fastest selling holiday item. It probably still is today, it was a media darling because the television was saturated with it.