I'l, say it again. There are some move games, already on the market or coming out very soon, that scream for full body control like volleyball in SC, The fight , or even Gladiator (again on SC) so why don't these games have them if eyetoy=kinect ?? Why doesn't sont kill kinect by doing that simple little thnig and combine the best of 2 worlds, for example, in Gladiator ??

As for the topic of this thread, not much to say since the sales numbers will speak for themselves and , i believe, kinect software sales will blow move's out of the water.

But the games are not "pretty much the same."

The only games I would even consider are within the PS Eye's capabilities are exercise titles. If the the PS Eye was capable of much else it would get more games. Developers are relying on the Move because it actually has motion tracking.

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.

It wasn't hyperoble, I'm asking a serious question.  In what way do you define the "experience" as being the same?  Is it simply the same because you are using your body to control events that take place on screen?  If that's the case then that's only true on a very superficial level.  It does not provide the same experience.  As I said, if you're narrowing it down that much then there is no fundamental difference between any game you play with a controller, they must all be providing the same experience for you.

If you trust the developers than why is it every time I've pointed out that developers have stated that games they are creating for Kinect weren't possible before because the technology didn't exist to create that experience, you just ignore it and say "nah, it's basically the same thing"?

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)?

How about the voice control, facial recognition, full body scan etc etc?
I can do that on my gameboy right?

taking a concept that was done before is not being on the forefront. lets be real, its copying straight up.  Does Move work better than Wiimote????? of course it does it came out much later, but the concept is still the same. Is Kinect a souped up eyetoy???? hell yes!! there both cameras, you can speak your tech jargon all you want a camera is a camera. Until I see some MinortyReport/Iron Man 2 crap where your grabbing holograms in real time Motion , Move, Kinect are all BSing IMO

@daroamer: You cleary didn't read my post correctly, Microsoft never said ''it's just a camera''. They did say that the software is the part that makes Kinect different and is the complicated part of the device.

@hyruken: The PSEye has a microphone, but can't do voice control. Why? Because it lacks the software. Same goes for facial recognition, all done by software and the Xbox 360 cpu, nothing special in Kinect itself that makes it possible. The depth sensor is partly necessary for the full body scan, but again it's the software that really ''scans'' you.

It took Microsoft years to develop the software for Natal/Kinect so it's not something any competitors could pull of anyday if they wanted to, but people have to stop talking about the Kinect camera as if it's some miracle device, if anything give the software developers at Microsoft some props because that's the part that makes it possible.